4 ms·

I always interpreted that resignation as "both sides are terrible, so I'm going to keep voting for my side". I wonder how many people really felt strong enough

by toss1941 10y ago

I always interpreted that resignation as "both sides are terrible, so I'm going to keep voting for my side". I wonder how many people really felt strong enough about politics to claim both sides are equally bad and then decided not to vote on that basis alone.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tbrownaw 10y ago
I wonder how many people really felt strong enough about politics to claim both sides are equally bad and then decided not to vote on that basis alone. Since both sides are astonishingly bad, I usually end up voting third party in races where there is one.
- ignu 10y ago
  and that's why bills like this pass.
  - tbrownaw 10y ago
    Right. The only way to stop Kang from ruining everything is to vote for Kodos instead.
    - Analemma_ 10y ago
      You can keep using clever witticisms like that if it makes you feel better, and meanwhile bills like this will keep passing along party lines.
      - misnome 10y ago
        So it's the fault of people who vote third party that you have a two-party state?
        lazyasciiart 10y ago
        No, it would be a two-party state whether or not they voted third party.
        matt_morgan 10y ago
        It's sensible to ask whether a specific 3rd-party vote had a chance of affecting the outcome in a positive way. E.g., one of the more effective arguments against the current Green party in the US is they don't seem to try very hard in local elections, where they might stand a chance; but they always run someone for president who stands no chance. If we have a hope of getting out of this, it's going to start on school boards and city councils. Prop up your 3rd parties there, but vote the lesser of two evils when it's the most effective thing to do.
        nebabyte 10y ago
        And it's this kind of impetus that creates voter apathy. If you insist on trying to shove square pegs into a round or triangular hole, you're just going to end up with vote tallies similar to the one you just saw with the national election. As someone who didn't vote, no, I would not have changed my decision given the outcome, and this "lesser of two evils" justification crap is exactly why. Enjoy your shitty country.
        snakeboy 10y ago
        I suppose you will also enjoy the same shitty country? It sounds like you are the apathetic voter in this scenario.
        Chathamization 10y ago
        Very much this. There are many de facto one party districts in the U.S. where a third party wouldn't run into the issue of being a spoiler. The Vermont Progressive Party only runs candidates like this. The result is that thought they're only active in Vermont, they have 11 seats in the Vermont state legislature. In contrast, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are across in the entire U.S., and out of all 50 state legislatures they have a combined total of 2 seats (2 for the Libertarians, 0 for the Greens).
    - splitrocket 10y ago
      Look up Duverger's law. Effectively, in a first past the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
      - tbrownaw 10y ago
        I just re-read that article again, and don't really see your claims in in anywhere. I can kinda see how you might draw that conclusion, but I think it's an oversimplification and not really that accurate. I do see some listed counterexamples to the "law", and also a note about occasional upsets where the parties get completely rearranged. If both major parties suck, how do I ask for an upset? Is it by fuming quietly and voting for the lesser of the two evils, or by saying "no, fuck you both"? Or does the fact that any upset probably won't happen this election mean that it's part of "the long run" where per Keynes we're all dead, and so it doesn't actually matter? Do the major parties just ignore any non-major-party vote, or do they analyze it to tweak their platforms for next time? (And, is this consistent over time and space? I'm hearing that it seems to be the case in the US now, but in the same breath I'm hearing that that's a recent localized disaster.)
        splitrocket 10y ago
        I am in my phone, traveling. The Wikipedia page is a tremendously short summary, and yes, doesn't go into depth about the implications of duverger's law. I strongly suggest digging into the literature around it, which does bear out the thesis I states above. If both parties suck equally and no party is more closely aligned to your preferences than another, I suggest you enter politics yourself. It's just made up of people not too different from yourself.
        tbrownaw 10y ago
        If both parties suck equally and no party is more closely aligned to your preferences than another, I suggest you enter politics yourself. It's just made up of people not too different from yourself. I've actually thought about that a bit, and don't think I'd enjoy it enough to consistently put in the time needed to ever really get good at it.
    - splitrocket 10y ago
      Look up Duverger's law. Effectively, in a first pat the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
- CalChris 10y ago
  The third parties are even worse than the two parties. The Libertarians ran Bob Barr, a Clinton House prosecutor and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. Jill Stein supports Putin.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. ...what? Gary Johnson is himself a marijuana user who has long been am advocate of drug policy reform (not just for marijuana, but for other drugs as well). http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/qa-former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-argues-legalizing-pot-and-decriminalizing-heroin http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/qa-former-nm-gov-gary-jo...
    - CalChris 10y ago
      As Republican Governor of New Mexico.
      - chimeracoder 10y ago
        > As Republican Governor of New Mexico. When running for governor, Johnson campaigned on a platform of marijuana decriminalization and harm reduction for all other drugs. This was during the height of the Clinton-era anti-drug hysteria - you'd be hard pressed to find many other politicians who supported harm reduction at that point. There are things to dislike about Johnson, but criticizing him on drug policy is really bizarre. He's been one of the strongest (if not the strongest) political advocate for abolishing the War on Drugs for over two decades - much more vocally so and for far longer than any other politician I can name offhand.
        CalChris 10y ago
        What did he actually do when he was twice elected as the Republican governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. I give credit for what people do rather than what they say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#Governor_of_New_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#Governor_of_New_M... Also, he didn't campaign on legalization. He gave a speech about it in his second term. Did he parole any non-violent drug offenders? Did he use the powers of his office?
- imsodrunklol 10y ago
  The turnout dropped by a huge amount. It's like people assumed that Obama's policies were not worth continuing their voting turnout. Or that this election was so crazy that they decided not to vote in spite.
- TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
  There are dozens of us. Dozens! I vote 3rd-party in every contest I can. At this point, I'd vote for a puppy dog, if it wasn't a D or an R. It makes my wife, family, and friends mad, but I will not waste my vote on the status quo. I'm voting to send a signal that I want other options. I believe that if we can get to the point of just having a 3rd party on the platform for a presidential debate, we can open the door to other parties having a non-negligible effect on the election process. Of course, that's the Election Commision's fear as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/third-party-candidates-miss-cut-for-first-presidential-debates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09...
M_Grey 10y ago
That attitude is true to a point, but surely people don't think that Gore would have invaded Iraq? That difference alone strikes me as so obvious and tangible, that there's no excuse for these kinds of false equivalences anymore.
- brohoolio 10y ago
  It's actually a GOP strategy to paint all of government incompetent and that both sides are terrible. You get less participation.
- flavor8 10y ago
  He also would have kept us in Kyoto, which may have been even more consequential. I voted Nader in a blue state and regret it. Voting third party without IRV is naivety.
thearn4 10y ago
Quite a few potentially: http://imgur.com/a/ebvfk http://imgur.com/a/ebvfk

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tbrownaw 10y ago

I wonder how many people really felt strong enough about politics to claim both sides are equally bad and then decided not to vote on that basis alone. Since both sides are astonishingly bad, I usually end up voting third party in races where there is one.

ignu 10y ago
and that's why bills like this pass.
- tbrownaw 10y ago
  Right. The only way to stop Kang from ruining everything is to vote for Kodos instead.
  - Analemma_ 10y ago
    You can keep using clever witticisms like that if it makes you feel better, and meanwhile bills like this will keep passing along party lines.
    - misnome 10y ago
      So it's the fault of people who vote third party that you have a two-party state?
      - lazyasciiart 10y ago
        No, it would be a two-party state whether or not they voted third party.
      - matt_morgan 10y ago
        It's sensible to ask whether a specific 3rd-party vote had a chance of affecting the outcome in a positive way. E.g., one of the more effective arguments against the current Green party in the US is they don't seem to try very hard in local elections, where they might stand a chance; but they always run someone for president who stands no chance. If we have a hope of getting out of this, it's going to start on school boards and city councils. Prop up your 3rd parties there, but vote the lesser of two evils when it's the most effective thing to do.
        nebabyte 10y ago
        And it's this kind of impetus that creates voter apathy. If you insist on trying to shove square pegs into a round or triangular hole, you're just going to end up with vote tallies similar to the one you just saw with the national election. As someone who didn't vote, no, I would not have changed my decision given the outcome, and this "lesser of two evils" justification crap is exactly why. Enjoy your shitty country.
        snakeboy 10y ago
        I suppose you will also enjoy the same shitty country? It sounds like you are the apathetic voter in this scenario.
        Chathamization 10y ago
        Very much this. There are many de facto one party districts in the U.S. where a third party wouldn't run into the issue of being a spoiler. The Vermont Progressive Party only runs candidates like this. The result is that thought they're only active in Vermont, they have 11 seats in the Vermont state legislature. In contrast, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are across in the entire U.S., and out of all 50 state legislatures they have a combined total of 2 seats (2 for the Libertarians, 0 for the Greens).
  - splitrocket 10y ago
    Look up Duverger's law. Effectively, in a first past the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
    - tbrownaw 10y ago
      I just re-read that article again, and don't really see your claims in in anywhere. I can kinda see how you might draw that conclusion, but I think it's an oversimplification and not really that accurate. I do see some listed counterexamples to the "law", and also a note about occasional upsets where the parties get completely rearranged. If both major parties suck, how do I ask for an upset? Is it by fuming quietly and voting for the lesser of the two evils, or by saying "no, fuck you both"? Or does the fact that any upset probably won't happen this election mean that it's part of "the long run" where per Keynes we're all dead, and so it doesn't actually matter? Do the major parties just ignore any non-major-party vote, or do they analyze it to tweak their platforms for next time? (And, is this consistent over time and space? I'm hearing that it seems to be the case in the US now, but in the same breath I'm hearing that that's a recent localized disaster.)
      - splitrocket 10y ago
        I am in my phone, traveling. The Wikipedia page is a tremendously short summary, and yes, doesn't go into depth about the implications of duverger's law. I strongly suggest digging into the literature around it, which does bear out the thesis I states above. If both parties suck equally and no party is more closely aligned to your preferences than another, I suggest you enter politics yourself. It's just made up of people not too different from yourself.
        tbrownaw 10y ago
        If both parties suck equally and no party is more closely aligned to your preferences than another, I suggest you enter politics yourself. It's just made up of people not too different from yourself. I've actually thought about that a bit, and don't think I'd enjoy it enough to consistently put in the time needed to ever really get good at it.
  - splitrocket 10y ago
    Look up Duverger's law. Effectively, in a first pat the post electoral system, any vote that isn't for the major party that most closely aligns with your views is a vote that supports the views least aligned with your preference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
CalChris 10y ago
The third parties are even worse than the two parties. The Libertarians ran Bob Barr, a Clinton House prosecutor and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. Jill Stein supports Putin.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > and Gary Johnson who happily sent people to prison for drug crimes. ...what? Gary Johnson is himself a marijuana user who has long been am advocate of drug policy reform (not just for marijuana, but for other drugs as well). http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/qa-former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-argues-legalizing-pot-and-decriminalizing-heroin http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/qa-former-nm-gov-gary-jo...
  - CalChris 10y ago
    As Republican Governor of New Mexico.
    - chimeracoder 10y ago
      > As Republican Governor of New Mexico. When running for governor, Johnson campaigned on a platform of marijuana decriminalization and harm reduction for all other drugs. This was during the height of the Clinton-era anti-drug hysteria - you'd be hard pressed to find many other politicians who supported harm reduction at that point. There are things to dislike about Johnson, but criticizing him on drug policy is really bizarre. He's been one of the strongest (if not the strongest) political advocate for abolishing the War on Drugs for over two decades - much more vocally so and for far longer than any other politician I can name offhand.
      - CalChris 10y ago
        What did he actually do when he was twice elected as the Republican governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. I give credit for what people do rather than what they say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#Governor_of_New_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#Governor_of_New_M... Also, he didn't campaign on legalization. He gave a speech about it in his second term. Did he parole any non-violent drug offenders? Did he use the powers of his office?
imsodrunklol 10y ago
The turnout dropped by a huge amount. It's like people assumed that Obama's policies were not worth continuing their voting turnout. Or that this election was so crazy that they decided not to vote in spite.
TheRealDunkirk 10y ago
There are dozens of us. Dozens! I vote 3rd-party in every contest I can. At this point, I'd vote for a puppy dog, if it wasn't a D or an R. It makes my wife, family, and friends mad, but I will not waste my vote on the status quo. I'm voting to send a signal that I want other options. I believe that if we can get to the point of just having a 3rd party on the platform for a presidential debate, we can open the door to other parties having a non-negligible effect on the election process. Of course, that's the Election Commision's fear as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/third-party-candidates-miss-cut-for-first-presidential-debates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09...

M_Grey 10y ago

That attitude is true to a point, but surely people don't think that Gore would have invaded Iraq? That difference alone strikes me as so obvious and tangible, that there's no excuse for these kinds of false equivalences anymore.

brohoolio 10y ago
It's actually a GOP strategy to paint all of government incompetent and that both sides are terrible. You get less participation.
flavor8 10y ago
He also would have kept us in Kyoto, which may have been even more consequential. I voted Nader in a blue state and regret it. Voting third party without IRV is naivety.

thearn4 10y ago

Quite a few potentially: http://imgur.com/a/ebvfk http://imgur.com/a/ebvfk