5 ms·

"If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How abo

"If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. It would be interesting to see a poll asking "If you knew the candidate you voted for could win, who would you vote for?" Another argument for voting according to your principles is that based on the electoral college system, only people living in a few states actually contribute to the outcome of the election with their votes, so if you don't live in one of those states, you might as well show your support for someone you don't consider to be evil.

AlexandrB 13y ago
> How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. I think that's a bit idealistic. A lot of people voted Ralph Nader in 2000, and while it's up for debate whether this cost Gore the election, I think many voters are now turned off the idea. In a close con/dem race, I think many would rather have some of their positions represented by the resulting POTUS than shoot for the moon and risk "splitting the vote". One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes.
- snth 13y ago
  > One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes. For me, recent events qualify.
- cgranade 13y ago
  I agree with you, but I'd have hoped the outrageous shit happening now would be enough to break the two-party dynamic, but I'm rather doubting it, having seen that the reactions are defined by the media in an entirely two-party manner. I think if anything from the NSA leaks changes this dynamic, it will be the exodus of technology dollars from the US.
einhverfr 13y ago
The problem is that voting for the lesser of two evils is that in the current situation it means, largely, rooting for the loser on the race to the bottom. Voting is a minor part of engagement. It is not a replacement for everything else. Voting for the greater evil may be good strategy sometimes, even, if it is to punish a party and insist that we need better candidates, or elected officers which will follow through on things.
diminoten 13y ago
I substitute "lesser of two evils" with "neither of two evils" but it ends at the same place. I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. For this reason I can't justify voting for a third party candidate, either, because I still believe they'd act similarly, and with less inherent power, they'd be more easily swayed into acting irrationally (being president helps a great deal in working within your respective national committee, and an independent wouldn't have that support). The only conclusion I'm forced to face is the undeniable statistical fact that, individually, it doesn't matter if I vote at all.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. Citations needed. Politicians have had widely varying behavior in the past. It depends on what the climate created by the citizenry is.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I need to cite my beliefs now?
    - coldtea 13y ago
      In a discussion, yes, you need to support them --either with citations and references or with your own argumentation. Else it's just a random statement. I believe X. Why would anyone care about my belief?
      - diminoten 13y ago
        My supporting argument is that every president, every leader of every nation in the entire world from as long as nations have existed have behaved, in this specific regard, exactly the same. There is never, in the history of humanity, an example of a leader who did not have a clandestine intelligence-gathering arm of his or her government. Furthermore, there has never been a leader of the US who has been able to avoid killing people through military action. Every president in the history of the US has blood on his hands. Arguably, every leader of every country does as well. From Nelson Mandella to Stalin, to Churchill to Sulla, from Nefertiti to William Wallace - all leaders kill people, spy on people, and break their country's laws. What reason would I have to believe a third party candidate could buck literally thousands of years of corruption, privacy violations and death? It's in the damned job description - leading is immoral, regardless of what party affiliation the leader carries. So would literally every action taken by Bush or Obama be repeated? No. But you can be damn sure that the things we all have huge problems with would be, by any human being on the planet put into the positions they were put into. They're acting rationally, given the information they've got.
nitrogen 13y ago
The problem is that a first-past-the-post election system makes a two-party system a near mathematical certainty: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/: "The Plurality and Hare methods both favour extremists: they can squeeze out a moderate candidate. The blue candidate, stuck in the middle between the red and green candidates, will win when public opinion is moderate with the Approval and Condorcet methods, but has no chance of winning in the Plurality and Hare methods."

AlexandrB 13y ago

> How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. I think that's a bit idealistic. A lot of people voted Ralph Nader in 2000, and while it's up for debate whether this cost Gore the election, I think many voters are now turned off the idea. In a close con/dem race, I think many would rather have some of their positions represented by the resulting POTUS than shoot for the moon and risk "splitting the vote". One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes.

snth 13y ago
> One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes. For me, recent events qualify.
cgranade 13y ago
I agree with you, but I'd have hoped the outrageous shit happening now would be enough to break the two-party dynamic, but I'm rather doubting it, having seen that the reactions are defined by the media in an entirely two-party manner. I think if anything from the NSA leaks changes this dynamic, it will be the exodus of technology dollars from the US.

einhverfr 13y ago

The problem is that voting for the lesser of two evils is that in the current situation it means, largely, rooting for the loser on the race to the bottom. Voting is a minor part of engagement. It is not a replacement for everything else. Voting for the greater evil may be good strategy sometimes, even, if it is to punish a party and insist that we need better candidates, or elected officers which will follow through on things.

diminoten 13y ago

I substitute "lesser of two evils" with "neither of two evils" but it ends at the same place. I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. For this reason I can't justify voting for a third party candidate, either, because I still believe they'd act similarly, and with less inherent power, they'd be more easily swayed into acting irrationally (being president helps a great deal in working within your respective national committee, and an independent wouldn't have that support). The only conclusion I'm forced to face is the undeniable statistical fact that, individually, it doesn't matter if I vote at all.

coldtea 13y ago
>I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. Citations needed. Politicians have had widely varying behavior in the past. It depends on what the climate created by the citizenry is.
- diminoten 13y ago
  I need to cite my beliefs now?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    In a discussion, yes, you need to support them --either with citations and references or with your own argumentation. Else it's just a random statement. I believe X. Why would anyone care about my belief?
    - diminoten 13y ago
      My supporting argument is that every president, every leader of every nation in the entire world from as long as nations have existed have behaved, in this specific regard, exactly the same. There is never, in the history of humanity, an example of a leader who did not have a clandestine intelligence-gathering arm of his or her government. Furthermore, there has never been a leader of the US who has been able to avoid killing people through military action. Every president in the history of the US has blood on his hands. Arguably, every leader of every country does as well. From Nelson Mandella to Stalin, to Churchill to Sulla, from Nefertiti to William Wallace - all leaders kill people, spy on people, and break their country's laws. What reason would I have to believe a third party candidate could buck literally thousands of years of corruption, privacy violations and death? It's in the damned job description - leading is immoral, regardless of what party affiliation the leader carries. So would literally every action taken by Bush or Obama be repeated? No. But you can be damn sure that the things we all have huge problems with would be, by any human being on the planet put into the positions they were put into. They're acting rationally, given the information they've got.

nitrogen 13y ago

The problem is that a first-past-the-post election system makes a two-party system a near mathematical certainty: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/: "The Plurality and Hare methods both favour extremists: they can squeeze out a moderate candidate. The blue candidate, stuck in the middle between the red and green candidates, will win when public opinion is moderate with the Approval and Condorcet methods, but has no chance of winning in the Plurality and Hare methods."