4 ms·

This upcoming presidential election is definitely more interesting due to this issue. My brother is a staunch Democrat, but he's made it clear that he's not vot

This upcoming presidential election is definitely more interesting due to this issue. My brother is a staunch Democrat, but he's made it clear that he's not voting for them if they put someone up who's soft on China. I suspect he'd be voting 3rd party in that scenario.

rapsey 7y ago
I don’t think it will be all that interesting. Trump has it in the bag.
- polymatter 7y ago
  so did Hilary
lazaruzatgmail 7y ago
which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in This is a binary choice dem or repub any other choice is a vote for the incumbent
- cheonic728 7y ago
  Trump 2020 Los Angeles
- siffland 7y ago
  I have someone I work with who quite literally mocks people for voting for a 3rd party and actually tries to "shame" them for it, usually using a line like "which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in" (usually with more colorful words about the incumbent and the voter). Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates. I will not argue which candidate it will help, but i think this line of thinking is detrimental to our voting process and wrong to rub in peoples faces.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Yup. Votes are earned, they are not owed anyone. You want my vote? Earn it.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Can’t you both be right at the same time? Going all in for poker may be interpreted as an exercise of my human rights, but it can also be interpreted as giving all my money to the chip lead. Of course I don’t wish to argue the efficacy of my poker moves. They are an expression of my free spirit.
  - Analemma_ 7y ago
    > Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates You can say whatever you want, but no one is listening. Voter turnout is so low that the signal of voting 3rd-party is completely lost in the noise of passive non-voting. 3rd-party votes might feel good, but pragmatically (and what is voting except a pragmatic attempt to advance your preferred policy), they are useless. I encourage everyone on this comment chain to read Clay Shirky's "There is no such thing as a protest vote" [0], and really take it seriously, instead of jumping to thought-terminating cliches by angrily denouncing him as a sheep or whatever. He's right. [0]: https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protest-vote-c2fdacabd704 https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protes...
    - siffland 7y ago
      Just for a clarification, when I said "Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates" I actually voted for a third party, i liked better than the other 2. It was not a protest. I did just read your link and won't denounce him as anything, but I do think telling people who vote for someone they like who is not in the main 2 parties that their vote was a "throw-away" is again not a good thing. We will have to agree to disagree on this. Although it is interesting in some other countries where there are more than 2 parties that do all compete.
    - godtoldmetodoit 7y ago
      In a Presidential election it really depends on the state you vote in. California is going team blue no matter what, Alabama team red. Voting 3rd party in one of those states is not going to change the outcome. Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin etc the calculation totally changes of course.
- chrchang523 7y ago
  As far as fallacies that can be demonstrated to be mathematically incorrect to bright 5-year-olds go, this one is absurdly common. 0 may not be equal to 1, but it isn't equal to -1 either. It takes TWO people changing their vote from <your favored major candidate> to <third-party candidate> to match the effect of one person changing from <your favored major candidate> to <the opposing major candidate>.
  - bart_spoon 7y ago
    Its not a full vote for the incumbent, but it is mathematically equivalent to a half vote for both candidates, so the statement that they are "voting for the incumbent" isn't incorrect.

rapsey 7y ago

I don’t think it will be all that interesting. Trump has it in the bag.

polymatter 7y ago
so did Hilary

lazaruzatgmail 7y ago

which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in This is a binary choice dem or repub any other choice is a vote for the incumbent

cheonic728 7y ago
Trump 2020 Los Angeles
siffland 7y ago
I have someone I work with who quite literally mocks people for voting for a 3rd party and actually tries to "shame" them for it, usually using a line like "which means he is voting to keep the incumbent in" (usually with more colorful words about the incumbent and the voter). Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates. I will not argue which candidate it will help, but i think this line of thinking is detrimental to our voting process and wrong to rub in peoples faces.
- mc32 7y ago
  Yup. Votes are earned, they are not owed anyone. You want my vote? Earn it.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Can’t you both be right at the same time? Going all in for poker may be interpreted as an exercise of my human rights, but it can also be interpreted as giving all my money to the chip lead. Of course I don’t wish to argue the efficacy of my poker moves. They are an expression of my free spirit.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  > Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates You can say whatever you want, but no one is listening. Voter turnout is so low that the signal of voting 3rd-party is completely lost in the noise of passive non-voting. 3rd-party votes might feel good, but pragmatically (and what is voting except a pragmatic attempt to advance your preferred policy), they are useless. I encourage everyone on this comment chain to read Clay Shirky's "There is no such thing as a protest vote" [0], and really take it seriously, instead of jumping to thought-terminating cliches by angrily denouncing him as a sheep or whatever. He's right. [0]: https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protest-vote-c2fdacabd704 https://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protes...
  - siffland 7y ago
    Just for a clarification, when I said "Voting 3rd party exercises your right to say you don't like either of the other 2 candidates" I actually voted for a third party, i liked better than the other 2. It was not a protest. I did just read your link and won't denounce him as anything, but I do think telling people who vote for someone they like who is not in the main 2 parties that their vote was a "throw-away" is again not a good thing. We will have to agree to disagree on this. Although it is interesting in some other countries where there are more than 2 parties that do all compete.
  - godtoldmetodoit 7y ago
    In a Presidential election it really depends on the state you vote in. California is going team blue no matter what, Alabama team red. Voting 3rd party in one of those states is not going to change the outcome. Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin etc the calculation totally changes of course.
chrchang523 7y ago
As far as fallacies that can be demonstrated to be mathematically incorrect to bright 5-year-olds go, this one is absurdly common. 0 may not be equal to 1, but it isn't equal to -1 either. It takes TWO people changing their vote from <your favored major candidate> to <third-party candidate> to match the effect of one person changing from <your favored major candidate> to <the opposing major candidate>.
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  Its not a full vote for the incumbent, but it is mathematically equivalent to a half vote for both candidates, so the statement that they are "voting for the incumbent" isn't incorrect.