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

[Ghostpanther]

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

Ok. I misunderstood then. But I do think the electoral college should be done away with and a strict popular vote done instead to declare the winner. They are suppose to serve the people, not just the states. :P But this is my opinion and I am sure not shared by some.

[Paarthurnax]

Logically if you refuse to vote for X and don't turn around and also vote for Y then your not helping either side, you are casting a negative half vote to both sides. People spouting that line are only doing so to guilt you into voting one way or another.

[nextormento]

Why not Y?

Everybody knows Y is a lie.

[Deleted]

Well if you would vote Trump you're kind of a part of the "problem"....

But then again Hillary is shit too

[Immitis]

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.

1 america isnt a democracy

2 your vote doesnt count. voting is pointless in america.

[Immitis]

just not in and of themselves as individual votes.

so they dont matter, exactly as i said.

the real vote for the president was when we were voting for the nominees. more people shouldve turned up for that.

[dacoolist]

What I love is the people who don't vote but complain about politics on end. Those are the people I like

I could fill in "Your Mum" and at least I fucken voted - it doesn't even matter. Obviously I'm voting for one of these frontrunning scumbag frauds, BUT - I'm still voting even if I feel sick to my stomach voting for Hill/Trump

[Elegiac]

Welcome to bipartisanism.

[Pterodactylus]

If we want the House to chose president every time, get all those parties running! If a candidate fails to get 270 EVs, then the house chooses from one of the top 3 Electoral Vote getting candidates.

That's why we have a two party system. Don't like one of the two main parties? Work to change it. The dems are demonstrably more "progressive" with this platform than ever. And the republicans are certainly not the party of Lincoln.

[Immitis]

If votes didn't matter, then people voting as normal and nobody voting would yield the same outcome

it would.

unless you're part of the electoral college your vote is meaningless. they can vote for whoever they want to regardless of what the people vote for, hell, last time one of them was drunk and wrote a name that wasnt even on the ballot

[Immitis]

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi.../electors.html

[Masark]

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

No, it is indicative of a system of voting that is harmful to democracy.

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.

And then when they achieve meaningful representation, you run into 12th amendment, which might as well be labelled "in case of third party emergence, break glass".

[nazrakin]

Are you an idealist or a realist?

From a realist point of view, that is an accurate statement. America is not a true Democracy. America is a political duopoly largely made up of people who put their party agenda above the welfare of the country. Neither Hilary Clinton nor Donald Trump are fit to be president and its fucking embarrassing that these are the choices we have... However, vote or not, one of them will be your president so you may as well pick the side you think will do the least harm.

[unbound]

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 an uncomfortable reality of adulthood that comes up from time to time. Whether it is true at any given time requires you to dig into a lot of information (no, not just your favorite news website) and think.

Another uncomfortable reality of adulthood is that many times you are stuck with choosing between 2 or more undesirable choices. If you ever think you are choosing between an easy slam dunk choice and an absolutely horrible choice, you are fooling yourself. No choice is ever perfect, and you will probably never actually run into a choice that is pure horrible.

In terms of voting, in the US at least, if enough people split their vote, someone that was the majorities last choice can end up winning. This is how the Nazi party came to power in Germany. The majority did not want them, but they split their vote between enough other groups that the Nazi party won by default.

[Adam Jensen]

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's a problem with First Past the Post elections. Voting third party merely splits the vote, granting a bigger win to one f the primary parties. Voting Jill Stein splits the democrats, giving Trump a bigger piece of the pie.

[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.

I don't see the problem. Assuming you are in swing state, you have a choice of Trump and Clinton. If you abhor both equally, then you are a strangely eclectic person (because their policies and personalities are completely different) but by all means, stay at home. If you don't, why would you not vote for the one you abhor the least?

If you are not in a swing state, then do what you want.

Just don't be like the 10,000 Nader voters in Florida in 2000 who enabled the Iraq war and all the associated IS shit that is still flowing from it. If just 538 of them had used their heads, George W. would have been the worst President you never had. (Here's an idea, why don't you let Trump have that honor?)

[Masark]

In terms of voting, in the US at least, if enough people split their vote, someone that was the majorities last choice can end up winning. This is how the Nazi party came to power in Germany. The majority did not want them, but they split their vote between enough other groups that the Nazi party won by default.

Actually, the Wiemar Reichstag operated on a party list proportional representation system. Their rise came from a combination of actual support and their paramilitary attacks against any opposition.

[IIamaKing]

Non serious question... but, what happened to "Y"? Couldn't I get "Y" if I don't vote for "X"?

Yes but a vote for "Y" is a vote for "X" or "Z", depending on the leanings of whomever you are talking to.

[Jester Joe]

I hate to be that guy, but there is already a thread on this topic basically-
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-quot-nonsense

It just happened to fall back onto the 2nd page, but it's still active with posts from today.

So, on that note, I'm gonna close this, but please feel free to continue the conversation in that thread.