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

[Ausr]

Either side can accuse me of indirectly voting for the other, it doesn't matter anyway, I am still voting for Johnson/Weld.



BTW, Trump is a pussy!

Yeah, no chance of winning. How about you actually vote third party in Congress, where the actual policy stuff takes place? Your vote would actually matter there.

[Azadina]

Quite incorrect.

There's nothing wrong with different views on how to best serve the nation. That doesn't suggest any extreme divisiveness. In fact, many political figures are perfectly amicable with members of the opposing party.

This idea that we need to vilify, dehumanize and attack the "enemies" of our party, however...that doesn't help anything. Chances are, someone is trying to push their agenda on you by way of fear or other psychological tricks when they encourage you to do this.

And chances are, looking at his great list, he's bought into it fully.

[Paarthurnax]

Not voting for Hillary, but also not voting for Trump and instead voting for some other candidate like Deez Nuts is effectively a half vote against both. It's not your fault if one or the other loses its their fault for not appealing to you in the first place. If you are a democrat and you vote 3rd party, you aren't on the hook if Trump wins. In order for your vote to be a vote for Trump you have to actually vote for Trump. This argument is valid the other way around too, republicans not voting for Trump are not on the hook if Hillary wins, so long as they don't actually cast a vote for Hillary.

[Theodarzna]

But Theo.

That would actually require Introspection.

Smug cunts can't do that.

I look at it like this, when you vote for someone you are putting your stamp of approval on whatever they do and stand for. @May90 pointed this out earlier, if you vote reluctantly for Hillary even though you don't stand by her policy positions, that isn't registered at all, its not like each vote comes with a message. Voting for Hillary to stop Trump is still an endorsement and giving your name to whatever Hillary does. So if Hillary puts boots on the ground, @The Batman is endorsing that policy, he is for it implicitly through his vote for it. The DNC voted down a 15 dollar min. wage policy today, by voting for Hillary Clinton, @The Batman is saying "I agree, that is too much." and the DNC has refused to oppose TPP and Hillary has picked a big fanboy of it, while The Batman believes it is inevitable, he is essentially saying "I agree," with his vote.

As a voter your only real power is to not put your name on the Black Book of whatever politician, every name added is a name of endorsement, a granted mandate of consent for whatever they do.

[Reeve]

Good thing voting is not life or death

Voting IS life or death. We've seen in the past what can happen when people vote dangerous people into power. People do, in fact, die.

And that's not even getting into how voting affects quality of life.

[Theodarzna]

You're taking the whole concept of a "representative" a bit too far.

No candidate that I vote for will EVER do every little thing that I personally want, or avoid everything that I don't want. Claiming that voting for Candidate X is somehow indicative of a personal endorsement of everything that Candidate X has ever - or will ever - say, think or do is being intellectually dishonest.

We are a representative democracy, we elect representatives and put our name to their mandate.

Do you think Hillary Clinton will give a fuck why you voted for her? Once in office that won't fucking matter. It is not that Hillary isn't perfect, its that I know Hillary is not with it on most of the core issues. She isn't there on Health Care, Likely isn't there on TPP or workers rights, isn't there on the Min. Wage, and isn't there on War and Peace.... with her mostly war.

If you vote for Her, you do, in effect take responsibility for everything that person does in office. Hillary voted for the Iraq war, In my view every dead soldier is partly her responsibility, her fault. If you vote for her you are endorsing whatever she does, good or ill.

[Tijuana]

Voting IS life or death. We've seen in the past what can happen when people vote dangerous people into power. People do, in fact, die.

And that's not even getting into how voting affects quality of life.

Your claim is only valid if the founding fathers did not agree and set up a system of checks and balances to prevent your fear from every being realized.

We are coming off 16 years of really bad presidents and yet, we are still here. /shrug

[Azadina]

I look at it like this, when you vote for someone you are putting your stamp of approval on whatever they do and stand for. @May90 pointed this out earlier, if you vote reluctantly for Hillary even though you don't stand by her policy positions, that isn't registered at all, its not like each vote comes with a message. Voting for Hillary to stop Trump is still an endorsement and giving your name to whatever Hillary does. So if Hillary puts boots on the ground, @The Batman is endorsing that policy, he is for it implicitly through his vote for it. The DNC voted down a 15 dollar min. wage policy today, by voting for Hillary Clinton, @The Batman is saying "I agree, that is too much." and the DNC has refused to oppose TPP and Hillary has picked a big fanboy of it, while The Batman believes it is inevitable, he is essentially saying "I agree," with his vote.

As a voter your only real power is to not put your name on the Black Book of whatever politician, every name added is a name of endorsement, a granted mandate of consent for whatever they do.

Similarly, if you don't want say, Trump in office, but toss your vote away, allowing him to win with lesser vote amount that he would otherwise have needed, then you also took part in his victory. And by your logic, you endorse his policies too, by helping him win. Every single vote you toss away helps Trump win.

It's not rocket science either. If you have two candidates and 100 votes available, out of which 50 is trolled away from both, then now one only needs 26 votes to win, instead of 51.

[Theodarzna]

No, I'm not. That's not what any of this means. If that were actually the case, then no one should ever vote, because no candidate is ever going to actually hold a 100% carbon copy of you and your beliefs. And that's not even approaching the issue of elected officials who want to do something, but can't due to other factors.

Like I said, at best I can find a candidate that at least has an overarching view that roughly lines up with my own interests. Beyond that, I'd just be acting in a completely unreasonable fashion.

To quote @May90....

When you vote, you express your opinion on who you want to see as your president. When you support a candidate you don't like, you send a message, "I support this candidate", not a message, "I don't like this candidate, but the other candidate is worse" - the latter exists only in your head, but not in your actions. It is not all or nothing, it is voting honestly or voting dishonestly. Dishonesty in a society is never a good thing.


I am not expecting someone who is perfect, I am expecting someone is isn't malignant.

For example if I were back in the UK and I was told I had to choose between say someone who is a centrist but who has vowed to wipe out the Welsh Language, and someone who is a carbon copy of Donald Trump straight from Norfolk or some other incest riddled area but who has expressed no desire to annihilate the Welsh language, you could argue "Well hey, the Centrist isn't 100% what you want!" but I would retort "Were the centrist is wrong, the centrist is VERY WRONG."

Not all issues are equal. Were Hillary Clinton is wrong, she is VERY WRONG. By voting for her you are explicitly giving credibility and mandate to whatever she does.

- - - Updated - - -

Similarly, if you don't want say, Trump in office, but toss your vote away, allowing him to win with lesser vote amount that he would otherwise have needed, then you also took part in his victory. And by your logic, you endorse his policies too, by helping him win. Every single vote you toss away helps Trump win.

That isn't how votes work. Otherwise everyone is responsible for George W. Bush simply because Bush won, even if they didn't vote for him.

You are arguing that some indirect action in this case gives you a mandate. If I sign my name say behind Jill Stein or even write in King Arthur, that is a statement of what I am supporting and giving a mandate to.

Your argument makes voting totally worthless, which is somewhat ironic coming from an American as it seems a tacit endorsement of the idea that Democracy is a lie. You are responsible only for what you vote for, not what you didn't vote for. That would make everyone, even if they voted for Clinton and she still lost responsible for Trump simply because their person didn't win.

[Theodarzna]

Nope. I'm merely saying that of the given mainstream candidates, she more accurately aligns with my interests than the other. That's literally the best you can do in such elections. I'm not saying that I agree with her on all the issues, or that we would be good friends, or that I agree with her choice of toppings on her burgers.

Then endorse her, sign your name to the Black Book and proclaim your allegiance with a happy heart, you should feel no guilt nor sorrow, nor know of any shame for your decision. She is who you support, she is your champion. I am not here to tell you what to do.

For what you care about, she is your choice. However on the issues I find critical, she is wrong and thus not my choice.

[Azadina]

That isn't how votes work. Otherwise everyone is responsible for George W. Bush simply because Bush won, even if they didn't vote for him.

You are arguing that some indirect action in this case gives you a mandate. If I sign my name say behind Jill Stein or even write in King Arthur, that is a statement of what I am supporting and giving a mandate to.

Your argument makes voting totally worthless, which is somewhat ironic coming from an American as it seems a tacit endorsement of the idea that Democracy is a lie. You are responsible only for what you vote for, not what you didn't vote for. That would make everyone, even if they voted for Clinton and she still lost responsible for Trump simply because their person didn't win.

It's exactly how it works. If you want to toss your vote to someone who never had a chance of actually being the president as protest, then you might get your Brexit result. When you are given the chance to make a difference, but decide not to take it, then you are as much responsible for the end result as everyone else who voted for that result, or chose not to do anything about it.

[May90]

Your claim is only valid if the founding fathers did not agree and set up a system of checks and balances to prevent your fear from every being realized.

We are coming off 16 years of really bad presidents and yet, we are still here. /shrug

The system of checks and balances is far from perfect though. In fact, one could argue that if the system was absolutely perfect, then it wouldn't matter at all what candidate wins the elections, since they would be forced to do the same set of things, due to the system limiting their actions extremely.

Of course, in reality it is far from that. Sure, Trump won't be able to do everything he wants, and Clinton won't be able to do everything she wants - but if Trump wins, America in 4 years will look quite different from how it would look if Clinton won. Trump is a clown, and I'm scared to think of what he will lead the country to if he wins. Heck, maybe he would just get agitated in a conversation with Chinese prime-minister, say a lot of inane things, including threats and promises of sanctions and war - and ruin the relations between the two main economical powers on this planet. Such acts will pile up, and in 4 years this country might be ruined.

President, while not omnipotent, still has a lot of power in their hands. I personally think that presidency is extremely outdated in itself, and "pure" parliamentary republic is where it's at nowadays. Picking a wrong party is not as harmful as picking a wrong president, since a party has to compete with other parties, while there is only one president.

[Theodarzna]

It's exactly how it works. If you want to toss your vote to someone who never had a chance of actually being the president as protest, then you might get your Brexit result. When you are given the chance to make a difference, but decide not to take it, then you are as much responsible for the end result as everyone else who voted for that result, or chose not to do anything about it.

If the person(s) difference is also bad, you have no real choice.

[Azadina]

If the person(s) difference is also bad, you have no real choice.

There's always lesser evil out of two.

[PC2]

There are a lot of Democrat conspiracy theorists out there who think a vote for Jill Stein would route to Trump. They can often be found chanting "There can only be 2".

[Theodarzna]

The system of checks and balances is far from perfect though. In fact, one could argue that if the system was absolutely perfect, then it wouldn't matter at all what candidate wins the elections, since they would be forced to do the same set of things, due to the system limiting their actions extremely.

Of course, in reality it is far from that. Sure, Trump won't be able to do everything he wants, and Clinton won't be able to do everything she wants - but if Trump wins, America in 4 years will look quite different from how it would look if Clinton won. Trump is a clown, and I'm scared to think of what he will lead the country to if he wins. Heck, maybe he would just get agitated in a conversation with Chinese prime-minister, say a lot of inane things, including threats and promises of sanctions and war - and ruin the relations between the two main economical powers on this planet. Such acts will pile up, and in 4 years this country might be ruined.

President, while not omnipotent, still has a lot of power in their hands. I personally think that presidency is extremely outdated in itself, and "pure" parliamentary republic is where it's at nowadays. Picking a wrong party is not as harmful as picking a wrong president, since a party has to compete with other parties, while there is only one president.

Being from Europe, I have to say this is absolutely true. I am confounded by America's utterly dumb system.

[May90]

There's always lesser evil out of two.

Well, I think there is a level of evilness beyond which it doesn't matter which one is a lesser evil: supporting either is suicide.

[Gamdwelf]

Voting IS life or death. We've seen in the past what can happen when people vote dangerous people into power. People do, in fact, die.

And that's not even getting into how voting affects quality of life.

Which is exactly why neither trump nor Hillary should be anybody's choice.

[Theodarzna]

There's always lesser evil out of two.

Evil is somewhat subjective,

In my example I gave, the choice would be between a centrist who might make a good manager but pledges the annihilation of that I hold most dear, and a generally bad and unpredictable actor.

It is essentially a Sofie's Choice.

[May90]

Being from Europe, I have to say this is absolutely true. I am confounded by America's utterly dumb system.

American system essentially remained unchanged ever since it was created, which was over two centuries ago. Maybe that's the reason the US is so bad at keeping up with time: because it is built on an ancient foundation which isn't competitive nowadays?