If you do not vote for X you are basically voting for Z

[IIamaKing]

Do you think this line of thinking is harmful to democracy?

To me it feels slightly like extortion.

"Vote the party line or you are part of the problem."

I also find it funny that both sides use this line to bully people into the booth to vote for a person the abhor.

[Damajin]

No, it's part and parcel of democracy, which is rule of the mass. It's harmful to Republican (not referring to the GOP here, btw) countries which are primarily based around Rule of Law and a dynamic of both unchangeable, immutable principles and ever changing manifestations of those principles.

The Either Or bit has always been particularly tyrannical regardless of where it shows up.

[jillnothill]

yes its harmful as hell. it's a bullshit bully tatic to get people to fall inline and vote for their candidate

[zenkai]

Do you think this line of thinking is harmful to democracy?

To me it feels slightly like extortion.

"Vote the party line or you are part of the problem."

I also find it funny that both sides use this line to bully people into the booth to vote for a person the abhor.

That is the lie the 2 party system will have you believe in order for both to stay in power, divide and conquer.

[Arcrin]

No, it's not the line of thinking that is harmful to democracy.
The political system that causes this is the harmful thing.

That's the downside of a "winner takes all" system.
When A gets 33%, B gets 33% and C gets 34% of the votes, then C gets 100% of the power even though 66% of the voters do not want it.

this^^

and its even worse. That its not 1 point for that state win, no no its all the votes the state registered you get so if state A has 100 votes and state B has 101 vote and you win state B by 1% you get it win it all and gerrymandering is a factor here too to make even more corrupt. US system is a joke from the core, not just its media.

[Celista]

I wouldn't call it extortion, but is misplaced blame. Vote for the candidate you want to see in office, if X candidate gets into office instead of Y or Z then blame those who voted for X or Y/Z candidate for not doing enough to win your vote.

If you do not want to support a broken two party/electoral college system then don't. Change will not happen as long as we feel coerced into supporting it.

[Milchshake]

We need a mega thread for all these posts. I'll help with the title; "I'm too Fucking Stupid to Understand the Electoral College".

Fellow Americans, you only have one national vote every four years. Time to grow up a little and understand how it works.

[Theodarzna]

Do you think this line of thinking is harmful to democracy?

To me it feels slightly like extortion.

"Vote the party line or you are part of the problem."

I also find it funny that both sides use this line to bully people into the booth to vote for a person the abhor.

My thread on this topic was better. jk

But yeah, I think its basically a dumb tactic used by bad politicians to justify their shit.

[Celista]

Will it happen if many of us stop supporting it? All over the West there are multiple countries electing governments where the actual winner of the election by a landslide is "None of the above"

So, what we have now?

Start petitioning your elected congressmen for change to the electoral college system. Or a preferential ranking system at the ballot box.

[pmkaboo]

the whole system is retarded. from how difficult it is to submit your vote in the age of smartphones and internet to elected parties not having any obligations to follow the promises they made before elections and how difficult it is to replace them.

[Ghostpanther]

So, what we have now?

Start petitioning your elected congressmen for change to the electoral college system. Or a preferential ranking system at the ballot box.

To a strict popular vote? Even then, it would favor a 2 party system. But I do agree one should vote how they feel. I also understand the logic of realistic chances and sometimes, there is a worse evil.

[Bollocks]

I mean, its true. With May90 we even played a game.

[Deleted]

Do you think this line of thinking is harmful to democracy?

To me it feels slightly like extortion.

"Vote the party line or you are part of the problem."

I also find it funny that both sides use this line to bully people into the booth to vote for a person the abhor.

There is surprisingly little actual difference between the parties and the candidates when you look at their actual policy decisions in government.

The Romneycare/Obamacare thing is the most obvious one but there are dozens of other phoney non-existent differences the media hypes up.

[nextormento]

It's a persuading piece of rhetoric. Just like anything related to politics.
People voting X are just less concerned with Z winning than the people articulating that line of thought.

[Beet]

Do you think this line of thinking is harmful to democracy?

To me it feels slightly like extortion.

"Vote the party line or you are part of the problem."

I also find it funny that both sides use this line to bully people into the booth to vote for a person the abhor.

Didn't we just have this thread like two days ago? But anyways, you can dislike the phrase all you want but it's true. Nader running for example gave Bush the win in 2000. If he didn't run, Gore would have won and it's that simple. A vote for a third party candidate in the presidential election is a total waste of a vote. The last time a third party candidate had even a small shot at winning was Ross Perot.

The only way Trump can win this is if the Bernie supporters vote for Jill Stein which is equal to a vote for Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

That is the lie the 2 party system will have you believe in order for both to stay in power, divide and conquer.

Lol no. The third parties just have no shot for the presidency partly because they have no one elected in lesser offices. Those lesser offices are where voting for third parties can actually make a difference and have a chance to succeed.

[Deleted]

It's true though.

The two party system exists not because it's illegal or anything to have other parties, but because whoever has the most votes wins the election ('winner takes it all').

[Alydael]

Do you think this line of thinking is harmful to democracy?

To me it feels slightly like extortion.

"Vote the party line or you are part of the problem."

I also find it funny that both sides use this line to bully people into the booth to vote for a person the abhor.

It is just a bs line that the parties use to stay in power. It doesn't even make sense, if you think about it. If you don't cast a vote, then you voted for: (guess what?) no one! That's right, when you don't vote, you voted for no one by definition. Each candidate still has to amass enough votes to win the state and collect the electoral vote. Since you did not cast a vote, you non vote did not help nor hinder either candidate. It essence, you have removed your influence from the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't we just have this thread like two days ago? But anyways, you can dislike the phrase all you want but it's true. Nader running for example gave Bush the win in 2000. If he didn't run, Gore would have won and it's that simple. A vote for a third party candidate in the presidential election is a total waste of a vote. The last time a third party candidate had even a small shot at winning was Ross Perot.

The only way Trump can win this is if the Bernie supporters vote for Jill Stein which is equal to a vote for Trump.

- - - Updated - - -


Lol no. The third parties just have no shot for the presidency partly because they have no one elected in lesser offices. Those lesser offices are where voting for third parties can actually make a difference and have a chance to succeed.

You assume that the Bernie Sanders supporters who vote for Jill Stein would have voted Hillary. You can't say that. They might have chosen to abstain.

[Ghostpanther]

It's true though.

The two party system exists not because it's illegal or anything to have other parties, but because whoever has the most votes wins the election ('winner takes it all').

In the US Presidential election that is not true however. The one with most electoral college points wins. Which most of the time it is the one who has got the most votes. But it has happen before a candidate has won the election with less popular votes than the loser had. It is possible it could happen this Nov.

http://www.history.com/topics/us-pre...election-facts

[Deleted]

In the US Presidential election that is not true however. The one with most electoral college points wins. Which most of the time it is the one who has got the most votes. But it has happen before a candidate has won the election with less popular votes than the loser had. It is possible it could happen this Nov.

That's what I meant

and there's a simple reason for that, smaller states wield disproportionate amounts of power for the sake of the union

[Polyxo]

Why not Y?