4 ms·

If you are to take this at face value, the answer to that (IMO) is to vote third party if you don't have a strong preference between the main two. Then you are

by polshaw 14y ago

If you are to take this at face value, the answer to that (IMO) is to vote third party if you don't have a strong preference between the main two. Then you are doing your small bit[1] towards promoting plurality, and promoting the issues that probably align closer to your values than one of the main two. 1. You may say, 'i will make no difference', well, as one in 300m that is true no matter who you vote for. May as well vote with your conscience.

sparkie 14y ago
Carlin isn't complaining about who gets in - he is complaining that anyone gets in. A vote for anyone is your consent to be enslaved by whoever wins.
- polshaw 14y ago
  It's not clear that he is making an Anarchistic argument (as you suggest) or just complaining about the status-quo of politicians. Either way, as of today, voting third party means you won't be 'voting them in' (NB: it does not follow that your vote will not have any impact).
Shivetya 14y ago
Yet voting third party in the US has no effect, or worse it can boost the party your least likely to be interested in. An interesting article on WSJ via Volokh about the Libertarian party covers this issue http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-that-is-the-libertarian-party/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-th...
- bmelton 14y ago
  Not voting for the third party you believe in is the greater sin (IMHO) as garnering 5% of the popular vote makes them eligible for matching federal funds in the subsequent election. Simply put, let's say you're a Libertarian, but don't want to vote for Gary Johnson to prevent 'throwing your vote away'. But voting for him now possibly adds to his campaign funds in the 2016 election, which increases third party viability fairly substantially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics

by polshaw 14y ago

sparkie 14y ago

Carlin isn't complaining about who gets in - he is complaining that anyone gets in. A vote for anyone is your consent to be enslaved by whoever wins.

polshaw 14y ago
It's not clear that he is making an Anarchistic argument (as you suggest) or just complaining about the status-quo of politicians. Either way, as of today, voting third party means you won't be 'voting them in' (NB: it does not follow that your vote will not have any impact).

Shivetya 14y ago

Yet voting third party in the US has no effect, or worse it can boost the party your least likely to be interested in. An interesting article on WSJ via Volokh about the Libertarian party covers this issue http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-that-is-the-libertarian-party/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-th...

bmelton 14y ago
Not voting for the third party you believe in is the greater sin (IMHO) as garnering 5% of the popular vote makes them eligible for matching federal funds in the subsequent election. Simply put, let's say you're a Libertarian, but don't want to vote for Gary Johnson to prevent 'throwing your vote away'. But voting for him now possibly adds to his campaign funds in the 2016 election, which increases third party viability fairly substantially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics