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

[Theodarzna]

Then you have some discussion to do with yourself regarding how important each issue really is if you believe that denying a vote for one candidate or the other might negatively impact more issues than voting for Stein supports.

That said, as long as you're honest with yourself about what you're doing, then I'm fine with the whole thing. It's the, "I'm going to change things by voting Bob Smith!!" people that annoy me.

I vote how I please and I vote for who has my support.

If Hillary wants voters she has to earn them, I know its a concept alien to her, but she might actually have to earn voters.

[Bollocks]

Then you have some discussion to do with yourself regarding how important each issue really is if you believe that denying a vote for one candidate or the other might negatively impact more issues than voting for Stein supports.

That said, as long as you're honest with yourself about what you're doing, then I'm fine with the whole thing. It's the, "I'm going to change things by voting Bob Smith!!" people that annoy me.

- - - Updated - - -



If you have one leak in your boat and you're trying to bail the water out, it's not helping if I come along and poke another hole into the bottom of it.

Yeah me too. People seem to overstimate the value of their vote a lot.

[Theodarzna]

If you have one leak in your boat and you're trying to bail the water out, it's not helping if I come along and poke another hole into the bottom of it.

If you keep poking holes in your boat than you are a shitty sailor.

Nader was a self inflicted wound. That is the other issue, what power do voters have other than their votes. If the party does not represent a particular voter or voting bloc, then they absolutely do not deserve NOR ARE THEY ENTITLED TO that bloc's vote.

If the DNC is anti-Union, Unions should be advocating for them as an example.

It is on the party not the voter, to justify support.

[I Push Buttons]

Voting against your interests is irresponsible, even if you are 100% confident that this candidate will win. I it pretty clear to me, and I do not buy all this excuses like, "Voting for the third party candidate is like not voting at all". "Garbage" example, again.

So both major parties are contrary to your interests? What are your interests? Anarchy?

You seem to have no concept of compromise and live under the assumption that unless your interests line up perfectly with a candidate's, no exceptions, they are contrary to your interests.

[Theodarzna]

Everyone has to "earn" voters. It's why I mentioned earlier the fact that even the two big parties hit the pavement years in advance for these elections, so how do people expect some no-name tenth-party person to get any traction if no one is out there campaigning for them?

It seems like a very lazy attempt at virtue signalling to do nothing all cycle and then announce that you, "Fought the system" by voting for Bob Smith.

I never said I was fighting any system. I am saying if you support X, Y, and Z policy, you should vote for the candidate that backs that policy.

[Theodarzna]

And yet what they ended up with was Bush.

Your ideals are sound here, but in practice that's what you're risking. Gore might not line up perfectly with your views, but if Bush is diametrically opposed, then you're taking a risk by voting Nader with no reward in sight, pure and simple.

Which had less to do with Nader and more to do with the Democrats not capturing the votes.

You know what they call someone who will NEVER leave someone no matter how they are treated because "Well some stuff is good," they call that person cheated on.

- - - Updated - - -

Because this thread is in denial about the realities of the American election system, which I clearly addressed.

No, you didn't. You, like most people ignored the post to blather about "BUT MUH SPOILER!!!!"

Which, why isn't Bush accused of having siphoned off votes? 300,000 dems went for Bush and those votes could have really turned the tables.

Yet its the folks that went for Nader who get shit and Not Gore for running such a shit campaign.

[May90]

If more people did that perhaps we'd finally get ourselves out of the two party system. 2 parties, both controlled by the banks and donors, might as well be the same party except for the 3g's (guns, god, gays)

at least with 3, 4, 5 parties contending the donor class would at least have spend more to buy off more people and sure up their monopolies over the parties.

Well, you can't control how other people vote, but you can, at least, control how you vote. One vote is not going to change anything anyway, there is no way the result of the elections will be decided by one vote - so might as well vote for someone you really support. And hopefully eventually more and more people will start doing that.

So both major parties are contrary to your interests? What are your interests? Anarchy?

You seem to have no concept of compromise and live under the assumption that unless your interests line up perfectly with a candidate's, no exceptions, they are contrary to your interests.

Not talking about myself, but in general. People vote not for parties, but for people. There is Trump, there is Hillary, there is many others. If someone doesn't like Trump and doesn't like Hillary, but likes someone else, then why not vote for someone else?

If I were to vote, I would vote for Hillary, because I like her as a candidate. No, I don't agree with her on everything, but I think she would be a solid president, and her policies kinda align with mine.

[I Push Buttons]

Which, why isn't Bush accused of having siphoned off votes? 300,000 dems went for Bush and those votes could have really turned the tables.

Because even siphoning those 300,000 votes he only won by 500 votes.

While Nader took 100,000 votes (which someone previously linked a study that said 60% of them would have gone to Gore) and wiped his ass with them.

If Nader simply had not run, Gore would have won... What about this are you not understanding? It is as simple a concept as there can be.

[Theodarzna]

Relationships are a shitty analogy to elections all in all, I don't know why people keep using them.

Again, if Gore wasn't "the 100% best guy" for you, but Bush was absolutely 100% NOT the guy for you, then voting Nader is all risk and no reward. That's the reality of it. You can talk about the long game and the complacency of both parties and yadda yadda, but at that moment, in that voting booth, that was the risk that every voter took.

Gore should campaign better? Is that beyond their capacity to reach out to voters? I know its a shocking concept to expect politicians to represent the voters they want but man, I just am old fashioned like that and expect politicians to represent their constituencies.

[May90]

I know you have a difficult time accepting that you're wrong, but let me try one more time.

If you vote third party, you may as well stay home. You cannot accomplish anything.

What do you accomplish by voting a major party?

[May90]

If you don't live in a swing state, not much. If you live in a swing state, you're contributing to the victory of the candidate you find more palatable.

If people want election reform and to break the two party system, the time to do that is not the presidential election. It's the other 1,460 days of the term.

But your vote is just one. It won't make any impact on the result of the elections. The chance that your one vote will decide the elections is so minuscule; and even if it happens, I'm pretty sure there will be a second round or something, because such a precedent would be unheard of in the world history, and it wouldn't be clear how the events should proceed from then on.

[Martymark]

I find Hillary loathesome, do not trust her, and probably won't be able to bring myself to vote for her. But if one doesn't, it's at least half of it for Trump.

[Bollocks]

Voting against your interests is irresponsible, even if you are 100% confident that this candidate will win. I it pretty clear to me, and I do not buy all this excuses like, "Voting for the third party candidate is like not voting at all". "Garbage" example, again.

But it is. People like to vote for a candidate that enjoys support of others and feel that has support. But that is besides the point, to illustrate the whole third party vote is useless or even detrimental, lets play a game:
Players: You, Me and a Trump hardcore supporter have to vote.

You and me hate trump and prefer Hillary over Trump, but you prefer Jhonson over Hillary. We know how the Trump supporter will vote, but we do not know how each one of us will vote. So that leaves us facing the following scenario:

a) Vote Hillary over Trump and have our chances that she will pass policies
b) Vote jhonson and have him win over Trump
c) Leave it in a three way tie, thus invoking the twelfth ammendmant.

Following your logic, I vote Hillary, You vote Jhonson and the Trump supporter votes Trump. Then we are left with options C and Trump wins because the congress is controlled by republicans. If you really cared for your interests then you would have voted for the candidate that has a bigger focal point, the one with the most popularity and has a chance at passing policies we agree with (Hillary). If you want to blame anyone for the whole "Third party candidates have no chance" blame the media the provide the focal points to the candidates.

PD: This game assumes the best case scenario for a third party republican.

[I Push Buttons]

But your vote is just one. It won't make any impact on the result of the elections. The chance that your one vote will decide the elections is so minuscule; and even if it happens, I'm pretty sure there will be a second round or something, because such a precedent would be unheard of in the world history, and it wouldn't be clear how the events should proceed from then on.

I cringe when I read stuff like this.

You have made up your mind though, so I won't argue further.

[May90]

You're pretty much disagreeing with your previous stance here, that's interesting.

Actually, I'm demonstrating the double standard of your stance, where you are okay with voting for a major candidate, knowing that your vote won't affect anything - but have objections against voting for a third party candidate, because they have no chance of winning.

I cringe when I read stuff like this.

You have made up your mind though, so I won't argue further.

Stuff like this is the basis behind the argument against voting for third party candidates.

[May90]

But it is. People like to vote for a candidate that enjoys support of others and feel that has support. Lets play a game: You, Me and a Trump hardcore supporter have to vote. You and me hate trump and prefer Hillary over Trump, but you prefer Jhonson over Hillary. We know how the Trump supporter will vote, but we do not know how each one of us will vote. So that leaves us facing the following scenario:

a) Vote Hillary over Trump and have our chances that she will pass policies
b) Vote jhonson and have him win over Trump
c) Leave it in a three way tie, thus invoking the twelfth ammendmant.

Following your logic, I vote Hillary, You vote Jhonson and the Trump supporter votes Trump. Then we are left with options C and Trump wins because the congress is controlled by republicans.

This game assumes the best case scenario for a third party republican.

The problem is, you never know how other people will vote. Plus, the impact of your vote is much smaller than in this example, so you don't have such clear options.

Not really, you just threw your whole "garbage" analogy out the window by switching to, "Well, one doesn't matter" when the topic is reversed.

There's no double standard about my position here, the issue with third party candidates has nothing to do with "just one vote".

It's the same logic. You say, "A third party candidate won't win, even if I vote for them. Hence voting for them would be like throwing my vote away". I say, "Well, you voting for a major candidate won't change the result. Hence voting for them would be like throwing your vote away". Where am I wrong?

[Pterodactylus]

Keep believing the reality show of this election.

Keep living in fantasy land. You're suggesting that Hillary planned to have Trump run - hoping he would win the primary - so she can beat him in the general election.

You realize that conspiracy is not allowed around here right?

[Bollocks]

The problem is, you never know how other people will vote. Plus, the impact of your vote is much smaller than in this example, so you don't have such clear options.

That is the thing, because you never know how other people will vote, then you choose the candidate that has the bigger chances of winning and passing policies you like. In other words the one with the biggest exposure. This logic and the game that I proposed (discounting the outcome) is applied to all of the population who will vote for the candidate that they like and think others like him will vote for. If third party candidates want to have a realistic chance at winning then they should gain some exposure.

As for me I'm going to be hypocritical and ecourage voting Gary Jhonson in every conservative circle I know.

[May90]

It takes a relatively small number of people to stray from normal voting behavior to change the outcome of an election, but it would take an exceedingly large number of people to stray from normal voting behavior to change it such that a third party candidate wins. One of these things is something that can reasonably occur. The other is not. If a few hundred people here or there stay home from the election because they feel their vote doesn't matter to the outcome between the two real candidates, then it may actually change the course of the election. That is not true for third parties.

Well, I suppose then you can say that your vote for a primary candidate has more impact than your vote for a third party candidate. But, in any case, for consistency, either in both cases your vote shouldn't matter, or it should, not equally so, but still.

That is the thing, because you never know how other people will vote, then you choose the candidate that has the bigger chances of winning and passing policies you like. In other words the one with the biggest exposure. This logic and the game that I proposed (discounting the outcome) is applied to all of the population who will vote for the candidate that they like and think others like him will vote for. If third party candidates want to have a realistic chance at winning then they should gain some exposure.

As for me I'm going to be hypocritical and ecourage voting Gary Jhonson in every conservative circle I know.

I mean, I understand this logic, and it is somewhat practical. I just dislike this kind of thinking, promoting choosing "lesser evil", where there are plenty other choices available.

[Bollocks]

I mean, I understand this logic, and it is somewhat practical. I just dislike this kind of thinking, promoting choosing "lesser evil", where there are plenty other choices available.

Well, then quoting Theodarzna its up to the candidate to come up with a certain appeal. Gary Jhonson could easily come with a better appeal that both of the main candidates have (I'm not X, X being (the establishment TM, an imbecile)) . Its the fault of Third parties for not playing the political game, like Obama, Trump and Clinton did.