5 ms·

In the past presidential election in the U.S., there were 22 candidates, including a socialist, a libertarian, borderline theocrats, establishment politicians,

In the past presidential election in the U.S., there were 22 candidates, including a socialist, a libertarian, borderline theocrats, establishment politicians, and whatever you classify Trump as. There's usually a ton of competition, but most people simply don't care. Ask people who they voted for in the last primary for state legislator, and the reasons they voted for them over their opponents. In my experience, people often have a hard time remembering who they voted for the next day, and it's extremely rare for someone to have a good reason why they voted for them. I've seen a lot of reformist candidates run against corrupt incumbents and lose. It's depressing, but even more so when you see that almost no one bothered paying attention to the race. And then you see the same people complain later - "Why's the government so bad? How come there's no choice and all candidates are the same?"

notfromhere 9y ago
it's because in a winner-takes-all system like we have, voting for anything but the top two parties is a waste of a vote. Voting third party in our system just means that the opposing side has a better chance of gaining office
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  That's a fallacy. If neither party is on your side, then voting third party is absolutely the correct decision. Both parties believe that a third part vote is a vote for their opposite number, but it really, genuinely isn't. Winner take all doesn't change that. Third party votes harm both major parties equally, by showing visibly a reduced voter confidence in them in the polls, and the only way to escape the deadlock is to erode their support over time. If you're staunchly Democrat, and you vote that way in an overwhelmingly red state, is that also a wasted vote?
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    >If you're staunchly Democrat, and you vote that way in an overwhelmingly red state, is that also a wasted vote? Well yeah. That's why we need proportional representation. People should vote, not land.
    - OtterCoder 9y ago
      But land does matter! We aren't nearly so homogeneous a country as we like to pretend. We've lost sight of the fact that each state should be its own experiment in democracy, and each state has a unique culture, economy, and climate, requiring a unique set of laws. The problem is that people feel so helpless in politics that getting them to care about their mostly invisible state legislature, never mind the Federal, is a Sisyphian task.
      - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
        >But land does matter! It really, really, really doesn't. If you can gerrymander Congressional districts and split North Dakota from South to get the electoral results you want, then "land matters" is just a way of saying, "I want power and I'm willing to rig elections to get it." >We've lost sight of the fact that each state should be its own experiment in democracy Rubbish: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kennedy-single-payer-states-rights_us_59c15b89e4b0f22c4a8d1ce7?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kennedy-single-paye... . Democracy is the principle that people affected by decisions should, by degrees, get a voice in those decisions. Electoral rituals are not democracy, and in fact, when an election in Louisiana or Texas can determine that people in Massachusetts and California don't get to make our own public policy choices, that's undemocratic.
        OtterCoder 9y ago
        How is an article about a Federalist attempting to overstep the bounds of power supposed to convince me that state level decision making is wrong? I'm not Republican. Additionally, most states I've lived in harbor a grudge against the disproportionate power of California in their own daily management.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>Ask people who they voted for in the last primary for state legislator, and the reasons they voted for them over their opponents. As a matter of fact, in the last case where a state legislator's seat was contested in the primary at all, I believe I voted for Pat Jehlen, who has a progressive record on economic issues I care about (health-care, wages) and helped pass a bill labeling transgender people (I know some) as a protected class for antidiscrimination purposes. Plus there was pizza at the phone-banks for that bill, and I can always appreciate that.
humanrebar 9y ago
> borderline theocrats Who was a theocrat?

notfromhere 9y ago

it's because in a winner-takes-all system like we have, voting for anything but the top two parties is a waste of a vote. Voting third party in our system just means that the opposing side has a better chance of gaining office

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
OtterCoder 9y ago
That's a fallacy. If neither party is on your side, then voting third party is absolutely the correct decision. Both parties believe that a third part vote is a vote for their opposite number, but it really, genuinely isn't. Winner take all doesn't change that. Third party votes harm both major parties equally, by showing visibly a reduced voter confidence in them in the polls, and the only way to escape the deadlock is to erode their support over time. If you're staunchly Democrat, and you vote that way in an overwhelmingly red state, is that also a wasted vote?
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >If you're staunchly Democrat, and you vote that way in an overwhelmingly red state, is that also a wasted vote? Well yeah. That's why we need proportional representation. People should vote, not land.
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
    But land does matter! We aren't nearly so homogeneous a country as we like to pretend. We've lost sight of the fact that each state should be its own experiment in democracy, and each state has a unique culture, economy, and climate, requiring a unique set of laws. The problem is that people feel so helpless in politics that getting them to care about their mostly invisible state legislature, never mind the Federal, is a Sisyphian task.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      >But land does matter! It really, really, really doesn't. If you can gerrymander Congressional districts and split North Dakota from South to get the electoral results you want, then "land matters" is just a way of saying, "I want power and I'm willing to rig elections to get it." >We've lost sight of the fact that each state should be its own experiment in democracy Rubbish: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kennedy-single-payer-states-rights_us_59c15b89e4b0f22c4a8d1ce7?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kennedy-single-paye... . Democracy is the principle that people affected by decisions should, by degrees, get a voice in those decisions. Electoral rituals are not democracy, and in fact, when an election in Louisiana or Texas can determine that people in Massachusetts and California don't get to make our own public policy choices, that's undemocratic.
      - OtterCoder 9y ago
        How is an article about a Federalist attempting to overstep the bounds of power supposed to convince me that state level decision making is wrong? I'm not Republican. Additionally, most states I've lived in harbor a grudge against the disproportionate power of California in their own daily management.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>Ask people who they voted for in the last primary for state legislator, and the reasons they voted for them over their opponents. As a matter of fact, in the last case where a state legislator's seat was contested in the primary at all, I believe I voted for Pat Jehlen, who has a progressive record on economic issues I care about (health-care, wages) and helped pass a bill labeling transgender people (I know some) as a protected class for antidiscrimination purposes. Plus there was pizza at the phone-banks for that bill, and I can always appreciate that.

humanrebar 9y ago

> borderline theocrats Who was a theocrat?