About the "If you don't vote for Hillary you are voting for Trump!" nonsense.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah I agree. People who think they can do a protest vote because their vote doesn't matter should take a look at Brexit.

Also, in the OP, what the hell do the numbers of Dems who voted for Bush have to do with this topic?

- - - Updated - - -



There's also the third option, where an independent doesn't win, but giving your vote to the third party instead of the lesser evil of the two main candidates allows the greater evil to win. Which historically is what happens.

They matter because for all the complaints about Nadar, those same complaints could be leveled at George W. Bush, yet nobody says "He siphoned off Gore voters!"

Today there is much complaining about What the Sanders bloc might do, and the rise of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson as being "another Nadar," but the Nadar comparison is completely bogus.

[Sky High]

The current campaign, on the Hillary side, tends to depict disaffected Bernie voters as being akin to Nadar voters, as if they owe it to vote for Hillary, but does it not behoove Hillary to earn their votes in her own right?

well they are. they aren't supporting her directly but someone else in this case Stein or Johnson who don't have a chase in the world at winning the election and it ultimately hurts her chances. I agree it's not an effective argument but I can't tell you what Clinton thinks. obviously she should try to win them over, which she has by adopting Sanders' policies.

[DeadmanWalking]

In theory you should vote for who ever you want. In reality not voting for the candidate most like your political viewpoints is voting for the one least like your political viewpoints. Nobody wants to hear that but that is the reality that the political think tanks bank on. It is political math, when it comes right down to it math is always right, 1 + 1 will always = 2, never 3.

Now lets take the example of Hilary, Bernie and Bealzabub... er, Trump. In this case you have someone pretending to be a right leaning Republican, Hilary is a left politician and Bernie is a far left politician. Bernie is out so his supporters have the choice of a guy representing the right and a lady representing the left. Hilary, being on the left is more like Bernie than Bealza... er Trump. The Bernie supporter choses to vote green party and Trump wins because Hilary doesn't get the vote.

In this scenario the Republicans win and return to power, Trump potentially choses the next 2 Supreme court members (One dead, and Ginsberg having major health issues) and the Supreme Court goes heaviliy in favor of Republican law. Abortion is made illegal, Gay marraige is not only illegal but all standing marraige is nullified, Gun control laws thrown out, No free college, Religious people can deny gay people services, ect. All the things Bernie followers want in life not only doesn't happen but everything that they currently have that they like would get reversed.

Now if Hilary wins she choses 2 Supremes and the court becomes heavily left leaning, Abortion stays legal and laws being passed to try and remove them are thrown out. Gays can marry and adopt children. Gun Control gets enacted, Maybe free college, Religious people can't deny Gay people services, ect. The existing laws that the left enjoy don't get reversed.

So if you vote against the person most like your political viewpoints then you are basically kicing yourself in the nuts when the person least like your political viewpoints wins because you didn't vote your politics. Even though you voted for a third candidate who isn't Trump or Hilary, as a Bernie follower you are basically voting for Trump and a republican supreme court. Supreme court is the actual power in washington because Presidents last for 4-8 years and then roll the dice again, but supremes are for life and the next president will greatly impact laws for at least 2 decades.

You can vote your politics or you can elect the people who hate your way of life and will do their damndest to remove you from society. The think tank math guys are counting on you electing Trump by not voting Hilary.

Again, nobody wants to hear it but that is the universal truth behind the math.

[Reeve]

Eh, the Brexit margin was still pretty huge. It's not like a few people "not trolling" or whatever would have made the difference.

I think this was a bigger effect than you think, but it's true I have no numbers to back this up. And the margin wasn't all that small. A 4% spread is not a huge victory.

[Gamdwelf]

allow me to explain to you how electoral college works.

each states get assigned a number of votes. ALL of those votes, 100% of them go towards whichever candidate got the most votes. they don't have to have a 51%+ votes btw. just more votes than the other candidate. so. lets take a state where people vote for all candidates with a bunch abstaining. you could end up with 20% of votes for trump, 19% of votes for Hillary, 50% didn't vote at all, and the rest split their votes between Johnson and Stein. even though only one fifth of the state voted for Trump? he still gets 100% of the votes from it.

and THIS is where "if you don't vote for Hillary, you are voting for Trump" is coming from. this is also why Gore lost to Bush, despite actualy winning a popular vote (aka when they counted all the individual votes, rather then electoral college ones)

edited to add, so to explain that negligible Nader difference. it was that tiny percentage that could have tipped the state vote balance towards Gore, but because those votes went to Nader? state vote went to Bush.

yes, our voting system is awful. yes, I wish we had Australian voting system. but the fact remains is that electoral college is what we are dealing with here and now.

Not all states do this, some split their votes.

[Reeve]

They matter because for all the complaints about Nadar, those same complaints could be leveled at George W. Bush, yet nobody says "He siphoned off Gore voters!"

Today there is much complaining about What the Sanders bloc might do, and the rise of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson as being "another Nadar," but the Nadar comparison is completely bogus.

That's because whether or not they were registered as democrats, they made an affirmative decision to vote for Bush, who was one of the two viable candidates. Those who voted for Nader, on the other hand, nullified their votes, which probably would have gone to Gore if not for Nader.

Also, his name is Nader, not Nadar.

[Reeve]

A 4% spread is actually very significant. Accounts for a difference of about 1.4 million in this case, I believe.

And you don't think that in an electorate of that size 1.4 million people might have voted based on, "I don't like Europe, and the polls are showing that Remain will win anyway, so protest vote?"

We all know people who think and vote this way. He'll I've seen it many times on these forums. It's not a stretch to think that type of thinking could have made the difference.

[webwierdo]

Voting third party is the same as voting for the candidate you least want. Its called the Spoiler Effect and is a consequence of our voting system. If you interested, there are a great series of Youtube videos on the subject here.

Having said that, voting 3rd party can make sense if you if you look at it in the long run. It's true that in any one election, a 3rd party vote is the same as voting for the candidate you least want to win, but in the long run, its the only way to show the Republicans and the Democrats that they no longer speak for us. Both parties work hard to promote the fear that this one time, the election is too important to lose, but they do it every single time. If every election is the most important election then they are all the same. Four years under the wrong president sounds awful but realistically they can't do anything too crazy because they will be checked by congress. Even if they got everything they wanted, things wouldn't as bad as the parties try to make it seem. Crime is at its lowest point in history. That's not a product of the last 8 years but the last 4 decades so neither party can take credit. Despite seeming like we are perpetually at war, its the most peaceful time ever. Each year more Americans are killed by cows than armed combat. Again, neither party can take credit for this. Every year average life expectancy goes up, standards of living go up, and general health goes up, regardless of who is in control. I'm not saying that the president doesn't matter, just that a period of bad times won't be that bad. If your truly are concerned about the future, as everyone claims to be, then it's worth taking the time to change things for the better instead of being manipulated into panicking about the next fours years.

[Witchblade77]

If the candidate does not appeal, that is on the candidate, not the voter. The Democrats do not own any voting bloc, even the black vote could turn on them one day.

obviously. however - when you are faced with a situation of lesser or greater evil - we can joke about Chutullu all we want, but... in the end you are still left with whatever evil you chose to vote or not to vote for.

Actually by not voting for either of the two major parties, you are merely reducing the amount of potential voters who voted either D or R. It's the pie getting cut into less pieces. Suggesting that the percent chance to win is modified is only true if you believe that you owed your vote to either major party and chose to take it away.

assuming the exact same amount of voters on either side chose not to vote, so the numbers remain roughly even. except that's not what usually happens. so people who are choosing not to vote are taking a chance that the same amount of opposition will chose not to vote for their candidate. which IS absolutely a prerogative, just need to understand that THIS is the chance you are in fact taking.

[Kallisto]

The current campaign, on the Hillary side, tends to depict disaffected Bernie voters as being akin to Nadar voters, as if they owe it to vote for Hillary, but does it not behoove Hillary to earn their votes in her own right?

No it isn't that they think they are owed the vote. But it is simple logic. "If you hate Trump vote Hillary. Because it is a 2 party system and if you vote for 3rd party moron who has no chance of winning and you're a fucking idiot if you think they do. You're essentially going to let Trump win and get the person you hate the most in."

This has nothing to do with Democrats voting Bush. That is because those people thought Bush was better than Gore. It's more those that think the Republican candidate is the worst option, yet votes for a no hope third party, which in turn means their least favourite choice wins because their two dumb to work within the system.

Does the system need to be changed? Yes. But for fuck sake, work within it to change it. Don't get pissy every 4 years then forget about it till the next election cycle.

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

This explains why if you hate Trump/Hillary. Not voting for the opposite but voting 3rd party is outright stupid.

[Jotaux]

Voting third party is the same as voting for the candidate you least want. Its called the Spoiler Effect and is a consequence of our voting system. If you interested, there are a great series of Youtube videos on the subject here.

Its not the same as voting for who you want least. Its like if Hilary has 5 votes and trump has 4 votes, if you hate trump more but vote third party its not going to change their totals, but if you vote trump its makes it 5-5.

[Tijuana]

So, its often said by a lot of pseudo-liberals that if your not "#WithHer," you are voting for Donald Trump. Allusions are obviously made to the 2000 election and the alleged impact Ralph Nadar had on the Gore-Lieberman ticket.

That X number of Democrats in Florida voted Nadar and it led us to George W. Bush. However, this is complete nonsense, Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush and 11% of Democrats voted for Bush in 2000.

In 2000, the Gore-Lieberman ticket couldn't even pull in the Democrats from Bush, why the fuck are we always fearing the dire spectre of Nadar, when Gore LOST those Democrats and more to Bush directly?

Ultimately it is on the Candidate to WIN voters, how many Democrats are going to ultimately write in Trump? Who the fuck knows, but maybe Hillary people should spend more time figuring out why Hillary deserves a vote and not screeching about spoilers and Trump.

What? There is no obvious reference to Nader as we were unaware that he ever impacted any election. Are you just trying to come with a Ross Perot for the left, and couldn't think of one?

Also, it is mathematically correct that, if you had planned to vote Democrat, and you instead don't vote, that is in fact half a vote for the other party.

[Gamdwelf]

In theory you should vote for who ever you want. In reality not voting for the candidate most like your political viewpoints is voting for the one least like your political viewpoints. Nobody wants to hear that but that is the reality that the political think tanks bank on. It is political math, when it comes right down to it math is always right, 1 + 1 will always = 2, never 3.

Now lets take the example of Hilary, Bernie and Bealzabub... er, Trump. In this case you have someone pretending to be a right leaning Republican, Hilary is a left politician and Bernie is a far left politician. Bernie is out so his supporters have the choice of a guy representing the right and a lady representing the left. Hilary, being on the left is more like Bernie than Bealza... er Trump. The Bernie supporter choses to vote green party and Trump wins because Hilary doesn't get the vote.

In this scenario the Republicans win and return to power, Trump potentially choses the next 2 Supreme court members (One dead, and Ginsberg having major health issues) and the Supreme Court goes heaviliy in favor of Republican law. Abortion is made illegal, Gay marraige is not only illegal but all standing marraige is nullified, Gun control laws thrown out, No free college, Religious people can deny gay people services, ect. All the things Bernie followers want in life not only doesn't happen but everything that they currently have that they like would get reversed.

Now if Hilary wins she choses 2 Supremes and the court becomes heavily left leaning, Abortion stays legal and laws being passed to try and remove them are thrown out. Gays can marry and adopt children. Gun Control gets enacted, Maybe free college, Religious people can't deny Gay people services, ect. The existing laws that the left enjoy don't get reversed.

So if you vote against the person most like your political viewpoints then you are basically kicing yourself in the nuts when the person least like your political viewpoints wins because you didn't vote your politics. Even though you voted for a third candidate who isn't Trump or Hilary, as a Bernie follower you are basically voting for Trump and a republican supreme court. Supreme court is the actual power in washington because Presidents last for 4-8 years and then roll the dice again, but supremes are for life and the next president will greatly impact laws for at least 2 decades.

You can vote your politics or you can elect the people who hate your way of life and will do their damndest to remove you from society. The think tank math guys are counting on you electing Trump by not voting Hilary.

Again, nobody wants to hear it but that is the universal truth behind the math.

But what if as a Bernie supporter you would rather have things shaken up for a few years than more of the same political garbage.

[Reeve]

What? There is no obvious reference to Nader as we were unaware that he ever impacted any election. Are you just trying to come with a Ross Perot for the left, and couldn't think of one?

Also, it is mathematically correct that, if you had planned to vote Democrat, and you instead don't vote, that is in fact half a vote for the other party.

Nader is a well known example of this, just like Perot.

[Theodarzna]

well they are. they aren't supporting her directly but someone else in this case Stein or Johnson who don't have a chase in the world at winning the election and it ultimately hurts her chances. I agree it's not an effective argument but I can't tell you what Clinton thinks. obviously she should try to win them over, which she has by adopting Sanders' policies.

It hurts her chances only if you feel X, Y, Z voter OWES her their vote, not she has to earn that vote.

You seem to be operating under the "They lost her the election," Not "She lost the election."

[BrerBear]

They matter because for all the complaints about Nadar, those same complaints could be leveled at George W. Bush, yet nobody says "He siphoned off Gore voters!"

Today there is much complaining about What the Sanders bloc might do, and the rise of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson as being "another Nadar," but the Nadar comparison is completely bogus.

First off, NadEr.

Second, you completely gloss over the fact that by appealing to those Nader voters, Gore may have alienated some of his other votes.

Some people didn't like Nader's policies (me!) and some people didn't like Sanders' policies (also me!). In a system built for two parties -- which the USA is -- candidates have to take on positions that appeal to the largest demographics in order to win. You didn't actually think that business people and conservative Christians were natural allies, did you? They were compatible, and that was enough.

The comparison with Stein and Johnson is apt. All four candidates have staked out positions. If Clinton and Trump move to adopt positions of Stein and Johnson, they may lose other votes in their existing base. This is why they will not and cannot just shift to the left or right.

If you are demanding that Clinton or Trump do this to win your vote, it is futile. And a great risk of getting your worst choice by not voting for the second best. Many Florida voters live with that regret today.

[Theodarzna]

Nader is a well known example of this, just like Perot.

Nadar is a false example as illustrated in my first post, Gore lost 300,000 Democrats to Bush, was that not a siphoning off of "His votes,"?

[Reeve]

No, I don't think that 1.4 million people "troll voted". That's nonsensical.

The bigger problem with Brexit was the turnout demographics. As is their MO, the younger voters like to make a show of talking about stuff and being "activists" and shit before and after the fact, but when the voting booths open up they stay home.

I don't think it's nonsensical at all. I meet people who think and vote like this every day. Even if it's only 10% of voters, that's more than enough to cause that effect on Brexit.

[DeadmanWalking]

Its not the same as voting for who you want least. Its like if Hilary has 5 votes and trump has 4 votes, if you hate trump more but vote third party its not going to change their totals, but if you vote trump its makes it 5-5.

Well since we are just pulling make believe numbers out of our ass, what happens if it is Trump 5 and Hilary 4 and a Lefty votes Green Party? May I introduce you to President Trump?

[Reeve]

Nadar is a false example as illustrated in my first post, Gore lost 300,000 Democrats to Bush, was that not a siphoning off of "His votes,"?

No, it wasn't, for reasons I've already explained. And again, what Bush got doesn't change what Nader did to the race.