3 ms·

> You saw it too in the last presidential election, where people rallied behind either giant douche or turd sandwich because they would never vote against their

by untog 9y ago

> You saw it too in the last presidential election, where people rallied behind either giant douche or turd sandwich because they would never vote against their team. I see that as more of a failing of the democratic process than people being tribal. Simply put, if you opposed Trump (or Clinton) your only sensible option was to vote Clinton (or Trump). The sooner we escape this two-party hell the better, but it won't happen any time soon.

Retric 9y ago
If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Remember core supporters are pandered to, but voters up for grabs are what shift elections. PS: When you try to game the system, the system owns your ass.
- untog 9y ago
  > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Oh, certainly. But very few people dislike both candidates equally. I didn't think Clinton was a particularly good candidate, but I was extremely concerned about the prospect of Trump being President. In that situation, my most sensible path is to vote for Clinton, despite my reservations. A vote for a third party would be a waste unless the system was changed in a way that would make it meaningful. All that said, I live in New York, so my vote doesn't make a damn difference anyway.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    >> > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. > Oh, certainly. but then you said: > A vote for a third party would be a waste So, which is it?
    - untog 9y ago
      Your citation missed my very next word after "certainly", which was "but". My clarification was that few people oppose both equally. If you oppose them equally then a third party vote is your best option. If you consider one to be a lesser evil, your best option is to vote for them. Just my opinion, of course, and one that is heavily biased as a result of the 2016 election.
craftyguy 9y ago
> I see that as more of a failing of the democratic process than people being tribal Why did the democratic process fail? Because people are being tribal. No one seriouly considered whether there might be other, better, candidates in other parties besides the big two. Given that we've done absolutely nothing to 'fix' the democratic process, I suspect we'll get to relive this again and again, and again.
- untog 9y ago
  > Why did the democratic process fail? Because people are being tribal. I think it's more of a vicious circle. The system encourages people to be tribal, so they act tribally, which further reinforces the system. Politicians with the power to change the system have zero incentive to do so. > No one seriouly considered whether there might be other, better, candidates in other parties besides the big two. Given that Bernie Sanders wasn't even a member of the Democratic party until 2016, I'd say he is a good example of a third party candidate who people would seriously consider, if the system allowed it. But it doesn't, so he won't be.

by untog 9y ago

Retric 9y ago

If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Remember core supporters are pandered to, but voters up for grabs are what shift elections. PS: When you try to game the system, the system owns your ass.

untog 9y ago
> If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Oh, certainly. But very few people dislike both candidates equally. I didn't think Clinton was a particularly good candidate, but I was extremely concerned about the prospect of Trump being President. In that situation, my most sensible path is to vote for Clinton, despite my reservations. A vote for a third party would be a waste unless the system was changed in a way that would make it meaningful. All that said, I live in New York, so my vote doesn't make a damn difference anyway.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  >> > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. > Oh, certainly. but then you said: > A vote for a third party would be a waste So, which is it?
  - untog 9y ago
    Your citation missed my very next word after "certainly", which was "but". My clarification was that few people oppose both equally. If you oppose them equally then a third party vote is your best option. If you consider one to be a lesser evil, your best option is to vote for them. Just my opinion, of course, and one that is heavily biased as a result of the 2016 election.

craftyguy 9y ago

> I see that as more of a failing of the democratic process than people being tribal Why did the democratic process fail? Because people are being tribal. No one seriouly considered whether there might be other, better, candidates in other parties besides the big two. Given that we've done absolutely nothing to 'fix' the democratic process, I suspect we'll get to relive this again and again, and again.

untog 9y ago
> Why did the democratic process fail? Because people are being tribal. I think it's more of a vicious circle. The system encourages people to be tribal, so they act tribally, which further reinforces the system. Politicians with the power to change the system have zero incentive to do so. > No one seriouly considered whether there might be other, better, candidates in other parties besides the big two. Given that Bernie Sanders wasn't even a member of the Democratic party until 2016, I'd say he is a good example of a third party candidate who people would seriously consider, if the system allowed it. But it doesn't, so he won't be.