29 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut 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 agoHow 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.
- creaghpatr 9y agoPretty sure that's why a bill has to pass the house and the senate. One is proportional and the other is a nod to each state as a representative in the 50 state 'republic'
- eli_gottlieb 9y agoThe House of Representatives isn't remotely proportional; it's still land-based. It divides the land into little districts, and then runs a FPTP election in each.
- yahna 9y agoIt's supposed to divide the land into areas such that each has about the same population. It's not even remotely close, and that's why the system is so broken.
- eli_gottlieb 9y agoOh, so you're against actually-existing states-rights advocates and their Party? Then aren't you basically just preaching another form of political utopianism without application to our current situation?
- yahna 9y agoReally, cause a bunch of people voted for Stein and helped give us Trump. You're a moron if you don't vote to prevent the lesser evil.
- dang 9y agoWould you please stop using HN for political battle? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html