5 ms·

I suspect Gary Johnson getting chosen by a Borda count isn't as weird/surprising as the number of question marks implies. Caveat: I didn't see a raw distributi

by comex 10y ago

I suspect Gary Johnson getting chosen by a Borda count isn't as weird/surprising as the number of question marks implies. Caveat: I didn't see a raw distribution of preference orders on the Vox survey; if it's linked somewhere, I missed it. But I think Johnson is effectively acting as a compromise candidate: a lot of Clinton voters really hate Trump and a lot of Trump voters really hate Clinton, enough that they'd both prefer Johnson over the other candidate, even if they don't actually know much about him, or even mildly dislike him. Borda count tends to choose compromise candidates, so that's what you end up with. Now, Johnson's policies are fairly fringe and weird, and so are the other third party candidate's (Stein), but that's because serious candidates don't run on third party tickets that have no chance of winning. If the election was actually conducted using a Borda count, you'd probably see a number of relatively boring centrists running, and one of them would win instead of Johnson - which is a perfectly reasonable result. Well, except that that would also fundamentally change the coverage of the race, so there's no reason to expect the election would go anywhere near the same way overall (it would probably be less polarized), but the point is that to the limited extent the survey results reflect this hypothetical world, they don't cast it in a bad light. Edit: Also, I like Clinton, but her being the Concordet winner doesn't mean much in terms of that world either. When almost all of the ballots give the top rank to one of two candidates, whichever of the two gets more votes is the Concordet winner. But that's only the case because of first-past-the-post, both because there aren't any good third-party candidates (neither centrist nor extremist), and because the structure of the race strongly encourages voters to sign up for one bandwagon or the other .

basseq 10y ago
But I think Johnson is effectively acting as a compromise candidate: a lot of Clinton voters really hate Trump and a lot of Trump voters really hate Clinton, enough that they'd both prefer Johnson over the other candidate, even if they don't actually know much about him, or even mildly dislike him. That, and a lot of people were voting less for the man and more for an independent ticket. And not even with the expectation that it would pay off in this election, but that it would encourage more (and more mainstream) third-party candidates to run in the future.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  The greater the number of votes a third party gets, the more the mainstream candidates will move towards the third party positions. That means that voting for a third party is not a throwaway vote, even if the third party has zero chance of winning.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  I may be reading into this too much, but I'm picking up a little bit of mild dislike for Johnson. I voted for him, and while that was easy when I looked at the other choices of Trump and Clinton (I don't dislike Stein, and I would have voted for Bernie had Clinton's team had not rigged the DNC and allowed him through), I also do strongly support him. I realize I'm a bit biased because I like the libertarian principles: prioritizing individual civil liberties, stopping human rights abuses and unnecessary wars, and streamlining government. I'm curious though because outside of disagreement with those, there's only one thing that I understand people disagree with: TPP (Johnson claims it isn't a crony capitalist deal and it does foster free trade). I guess I don't really understand why people have a mild dislike for him, especially when I see how some people adore Clinton or Trump -- it doesn't make sense to me. He doesn't come with the plutocratic baggage of Trump and Clinton (https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-goldmans-again-maga/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-gold...), which in itself is a great thing to like about him.
  - timecube 10y ago
    Most people don't agree with libertarianism. That's basically it.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      That seems like a broad stroke. Libertarianism is just a collection of different ideals, the same way socialism and capitalism are, around a few central values. The primary tenants are the importance of civil liberties and autonomy (as opposed to authoritarianism). Beyond that, you could be a libertarian and promote laissez faire capitalism, or you could be a libertarian and promote socialism. Saying you broadly disagree with libertarianism just confuses me: you don't agree with civil liberties and you want authoritarian government? (it's a rhetorical question)

by comex 10y ago

basseq 10y ago

But I think Johnson is effectively acting as a compromise candidate: a lot of Clinton voters really hate Trump and a lot of Trump voters really hate Clinton, enough that they'd both prefer Johnson over the other candidate, even if they don't actually know much about him, or even mildly dislike him. That, and a lot of people were voting less for the man and more for an independent ticket. And not even with the expectation that it would pay off in this election, but that it would encourage more (and more mainstream) third-party candidates to run in the future.

WalterBright 10y ago
The greater the number of votes a third party gets, the more the mainstream candidates will move towards the third party positions. That means that voting for a third party is not a throwaway vote, even if the third party has zero chance of winning.
wallace_f 10y ago
I may be reading into this too much, but I'm picking up a little bit of mild dislike for Johnson. I voted for him, and while that was easy when I looked at the other choices of Trump and Clinton (I don't dislike Stein, and I would have voted for Bernie had Clinton's team had not rigged the DNC and allowed him through), I also do strongly support him. I realize I'm a bit biased because I like the libertarian principles: prioritizing individual civil liberties, stopping human rights abuses and unnecessary wars, and streamlining government. I'm curious though because outside of disagreement with those, there's only one thing that I understand people disagree with: TPP (Johnson claims it isn't a crony capitalist deal and it does foster free trade). I guess I don't really understand why people have a mild dislike for him, especially when I see how some people adore Clinton or Trump -- it doesn't make sense to me. He doesn't come with the plutocratic baggage of Trump and Clinton (https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-goldmans-again-maga/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-gold...), which in itself is a great thing to like about him.
- timecube 10y ago
  Most people don't agree with libertarianism. That's basically it.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    That seems like a broad stroke. Libertarianism is just a collection of different ideals, the same way socialism and capitalism are, around a few central values. The primary tenants are the importance of civil liberties and autonomy (as opposed to authoritarianism). Beyond that, you could be a libertarian and promote laissez faire capitalism, or you could be a libertarian and promote socialism. Saying you broadly disagree with libertarianism just confuses me: you don't agree with civil liberties and you want authoritarian government? (it's a rhetorical question)