The third option: Gary Johnson

[Flurryfang]

This was great. Thank you for that.

OP clearly has no understanding of mathematics, so I'll say it here: voting for a third party ensures that your vote doesn't count. There's no benefit to any far-right or far-left person for a third party siphoning off votes. One need only look to the 1992 and 2000 elections to see the effect of this:

In 1992, Ross Perot took almost 20mil votes, many from Republican voters, causing Bill Clinton to come into office with less than 45% of the vote. Do you think those people who voted for Perot would've rather had someone who would've pushed for at least some of their policies? There was no benefit to the Republican party or any third party because of this result.

In 2000, Al Gore lost Florida by a few hundred votes, which lost him the election because of the electoral college, while Green Party candidate Ralph Nader got about 90k. Do you think those people who voted Green would have rather had someone who would've pushed for at least some of their policies than someone who pushed for none of them? There was no benefit for the Democrat party or any third party because of this result.

It's all about what you find important. If you think not being close enough to your policy positions is a good enough reason to ensure that none of your policy positions are passed, then you can vote third party as a protest vote. There's talk about some neocons not voting Trump because they find the pro-war position to be more important than anything else. There's also talk about Bernie-supporters not voting $Hillary because she holds Bernie's principles high in one hand while jerking off Goldman Sachs with the other.

Make no mistake, if you're right-wing enough to want to vote Libertarian, you're throwing away your vote by not voting Trump. Likewise, if you're left-wing enough to want to vote Communist party or something, you're throwing away your vote by not voting $Hillary. We don't have a parliamentary system. We don't have an alternative vote system. You get one vote, and you'd be an absolute fool to not employ strategic voting if you had any hopes of getting at least some of your way.

Sources: Gardner M. (October 1980). Mathematical Games-From counting votes to making votes count: the mathematics of elections. Scientific American, 243, pp. 16-26

Niemi, R. and Riker, W. (June 1976). The Choice of Voting Systems. Scientific American, 234, pp. 21-27

Sometimes, if you don't like either trump or hillary, you should be able to throw away your vote We have these guys everywhere in europe, parties, who will never get into goverment, but you don't like any of the big parties, you can throw your vote to them and make them happy

[RampageBW1]

Johnson was the only candidate who said he would require drivers to have licenses, citing possible dangers -- such as blind drivers. The crowd responded by booing loudly.
Johnson: "If we legalized all drugs tomorrow, the world would be a much better place."
"I'm not smart enough to say whether global warming is man-made," said Johnson.

Kudos to Gary Johnson to at least having the decency to acknowledge that he shouldn't comment on the subject if he's not educated about it.

Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen, seen widely as Johnson's stiffest competition, said we don't need the government to build roads because "in the future, we'll have jetpacks."

That's all well and good, but what about in the here and now when we DON'T have jet packs?

Libertarian candidate Marc Feldman says he supports separate bathrooms -- one for people who wash their hands and one for those who don't.

I'll be for this idea if the "bathroom" for those who do not wash their hands is labeled as "no hygene room". Which I'll avoid like the plague, because people who do not wash their hands are gross.

If these are the shining examples of Libertarian politics, I definitely will not vote for them. Well, except maybe Gary Johnson, his stance on Drug legalization is fascinating, if what I read here is accurate.

[Eviscero]

This was great. Thank you for that.

OP clearly has no understanding of mathematics, so I'll say it here: voting for a third party ensures that your vote doesn't count.

Your ignorance of the breadth of mathematics is matched by the inappropriateness of your sweeping generalizations and misplaced aggression.

First, social choice theory is an incredibly narrow and simple subject that no active mathematician thinks about beyond designing a lecture for some sad undergraduate course for social scientists.

Secondly, I personally have no interest in voting for Gary Johnson and my OP asks you to think about his impact on the other viable candidates. As you seem to understand, third party candidates are not always non-factors in elections. This year has some characteristics (which I've already mentioned) that make it ripe for someone like Gary Johnson to make waves (like Trump), where he might otherwise be irrelevant (like you).

[Ripster42]

Your ignorance of the breadth of mathematics is matched by the inappropriateness of your sweeping generalizations and misplaced aggression.

First, social choice theory is an incredibly narrow and simple subject that no active mathematician thinks about beyond designing a lecture for some sad undergraduate course for social scientists.

Secondly, I personally have no interest in voting for Gary Johnson and my OP asks you to think about his impact on the other viable candidates. As you seem to understand, third party candidates are not always non-factors in elections. This year has some characteristics (which I've already mentioned) that make it ripe for someone like Gary Johnson to make waves (like Trump), where he might otherwise be irrelevant (like you).

So what you're saying is that the OP effects a position that implies you can't do undergrad math? I'm just asking. Because he's not talking about the breadth of mathematics. He's talking about a fairly basic idea even by your own reckoning. You saying that third party candidates are not always non-factors in elections makes it seem like you DON'T understand the basic idea he was talking about. You know, that a third party candidate usually hurts the people who vote for them because instead of getting marginal representation they get none. The 3rd party candidate usually draws more votes away from the candidate with the most similar views. Your condescension here just makes you look like an ass.

[Eliseus]

Third party still not taken seriously

[Xar226]

So, could he be viable?

No. I can't imagine him winning a single delegate in the election.

If not viable, how big of an impact will he have on the outcome?

Well, with how split the country is and how close our elections are, particularly in a handful of "swing" states, it wouldn't be impossible to imagine him swinging the election. Honestly I don't see it though; it happened a couple of times with Nader in 2000 and Perot in 1996 and I think both sides are very wary of that. US elections don't really help third parties out, since voting for them if they don't win is basically the biggest vote against your own interests. (Imagine for example that would-be Trump voters instead vote for Johnson. With our first-past-the-post system, that actively hurts Trump and helps Clinton even though such a voter would presumably want Trump over Clinton. Votes for a candidate that doesn't win are effectively wasted.)

From who will he strip votes?

Democrats believe in the power of government for good; Republicans believe government is inherently bad and should be minimized. Libertarians are the ultimate hands-off approach to government. He'll easily pull way, way more from Republicans.

And finally, when he meets Trump on the debate stage, is Gary going to give Trump a wedgie and force him to give him his lunch money?

Would be fun to watch, but what makes you think he will ever make it to a debate stage?

[Eviscero]

So what you're saying is that the OP effects a position that implies you can't do undergrad math? I'm just asking. Because he's not talking about the breadth of mathematics. He's talking about a fairly basic idea even by your own reckoning. You saying that third party candidates are not always non-factors in elections makes it seem like you DON'T understand the basic idea he was talking about. You know, that a third party candidate usually hurts the people who vote for them because instead of getting marginal representation they get none. The 3rd party candidate usually draws more votes away from the candidate with the most similar views. Your condescension here just makes you look like an ass.

"OP clearly has no understanding of mathematics"

This moronic statement is about the breadth of mathematics. Actually, I made it so by my choice of how to combat it; by pointing out that most professional mathematicians little about voting systems because its a narrow subject more appropriate for a social/political scientist or economist to think about. I understand his points, and they all have very little to do with mathematics.

- - - Updated - - -

Would be fun to watch, but what makes you think he will ever make it to a debate stage?

Recent polls had him around 10%, before most people even knew who his is which amounts to votes for 'anyone else.' Granted, his numbers might actually go down as people get to know him, but the discontent with the major party candidates is strong.

[Chetnik]

"OP clearly has no understanding of mathematics"

This moronic statement is about the breadth of mathematics. Actually, I made it so by my choice of how to combat it; by pointing out that most professional mathematicians little about voting systems because its a narrow subject more appropriate for a social/political scientist or economist to think about. I understand his points, and they all have very little to do with mathematics.

- - - Updated - - -



Recent polls had him around 10%, before most people even knew who his is which amounts to votes for 'anyone else.' Granted, his numbers might actually go down as people get to know him, but the discontent with the major party candidates is strong.

Did you read the rest of my post or you stopped after I said you didn't know about the mathematics of voting systems? Voting systems have a lot to do with mathematics. The sources I linked were articles written by professional mathematicians for Scientific American. I know 1976 and 1980 were a long time ago, but the math still stands. As Ripster put it, my point was that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away because if the major party closest to your point of view loses, then you have effectively helped to ensure that your representation will be diminished. We have a plurality system where the person with the most votes wins (on a per-state basis), where even if they only win by 1 vote, they get the delegates from that state (usually... I think Nebraska does it a little different). Also, I added caveats to my statement by saying that while one party might be closer to your policies, there might be one or two things that you weigh far more than your other positions that are not compatible with either of the two parties, like neocons wanting to go to war or Bernie-supporters wanting someone not bought by Wall St. In this case, you voting for a third party is a protest vote in the sense that you're saying you want to punish the party that you'd normally strategically vote for in order to change them to something more amiable toward your positions next time. You must be able to acknowledge, however, that you are aiding a candidate that will implement policies you entirely disagree with rather than a candidate who will implement some policies you agree with and some you don't.

As for your last statement, there's no chance that any third party candidate will be on the debate stage with the two major party candidates. 1992 proved that allowing a third party candidate into the major debates was a disaster, and you can bet the debate committee won't be inviting a third party again (unless one of the current major parties somehow ceases to exist like the Whigs did).

- - - Updated - - -

Saying third party votes don't matter is disappointing. It does matter. We are never going to be able to kill off our broken two party system with that mind set. Even if you don't win the election this time if more people started consistently voting third party the main two parties would start getting scared.

We'll never kill off the two-party system as long as we continue to employ the plurality/first-past-the-post voting system. In an election where 3 people are running, someone can win with only 34% of the vote, meaning that 66% of the population would've wanted another candidate. All plurality systems trend toward a two party system because of this.

[Pangean]

Did you read the rest of my post or you stopped after I said you didn't know about the mathematics of voting systems? Voting systems have a lot to do with mathematics. The sources I linked were articles written by professional mathematicians for Scientific American. I know 1976 and 1980 were a long time ago, but the math still stands. As Ripster put it, my point was that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away because if the major party closest to your point of view loses, then you have effectively helped to ensure that your representation will be diminished. We have a plurality system where the person with the most votes wins (on a per-state basis), where even if they only win by 1 vote, they get the delegates from that state (usually... I think Nebraska does it a little different). Also, I added caveats to my statement by saying that while one party might be closer to your policies, there might be one or two things that you weigh far more than your other positions that are not compatible with either of the two parties, like neocons wanting to go to war or Bernie-supporters wanting someone not bought by Wall St.

As for your last statement, there's no chance that any third party candidate will be on the debate stage with the two major party candidates. 1992 proved that allowing a third party candidate into the major debates was a disaster, and you can bet the debate committee won't be inviting a third party again (unless one of the current major parties somehow ceases to exist like the Whigs did).

This argument is completely ignoring how many States are actually contested. It's only a small amount, I believe traditionally 7 . In those states where there is a contest you might have a point and if I lived in one I would hold my nose and vote for a candidate I can't stand to prevent a worse piece of scum being elected. In states where it's not a contest, voting third party is a great tool to send a message that both major party candidates suck.

[Chetnik]

This argument is completely ignoring how many States are actually contested. It's only a small amount, I believe traditionally 7 . In those states where there is a contest you might have a point and if I lived in one I would hold my nose and vote for a candidate I can't stand to prevent a worse piece of scum being elected. In states where it's not a contest, voting third party is a great tool to send a message that both major party candidates suck.

My first post acknowledged the effect of the Electoral College. While what you say is true, it's also true that some states that weren't considered "battleground" states before may become battleground states in the future. Obama beat Romney in California by 20 points, and the state is considered solidly blue, but if just 10% of the population votes third party instead of Hillary, California could go red. Likewise, Indiana is considered a solid red state, but if just 10% of the population votes third party instead of Trump, Indiana could go blue.

Either way, I've already addressed the idea of a protest vote. You should vote for the major party that most closely represents your positions, but that all depends on how you weigh certain issues. Some people find Hillary's connections to Wall Street abhorrent enough to warrant putting Trump in office over her. Likewise, some people find Trump's policies abhorrent enough to warrant putting Hillary in office over Trump (hell, the Koch brothers were talking about putting their financial power behind her instead of Trump). As a voter, you just need to understand that if the major party least closest to your positions wins, that you have helped to get them there, even if you're in a "non-battleground" state.

- - - Updated - - -

A great video by CGP Grey explaining why voting third party is a bad idea.

[Nathreim]

A vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary.

[Eviscero]

We'll never kill off the two-party system as long as we continue to employ the plurality/first-past-the-post voting system. In an election where 3 people are running, someone can win with only 34% of the vote, meaning that 66% of the population would've wanted another candidate. All plurality systems trend toward a two party system because of this.

Mostly true. In the US you need a majority to win otherwise the House decides. So 34% among three candidates isn't going to get you there.

[PACOX]

Until Americans actually care about politics, the DNC and RNC will run the show. This cycles political battle was good at exposing the all the smoke and mirrors that the DNC and RNC wield to make you think that they are some how the only legal options people have but sadly people will forget everything by the next election, probably Clinton's reelection.

I'm also glad that pop vote isn't a thing...strange.

[apepi]

I don't think this helps the Libertarian cause, it's spreading everywhere at the moment.

If parties were not viable because of the stupid people in them, then we would have no viable parties in the US.

[glo]

Oh please, like a Libertarian has a shot at influencing anything. They have about as much support and representation as The Green Party.

He's not going to get press coverage, he's not going to be in debates and nobody is going to vote for him. That's it, end of story.

[Pangean]

My first post acknowledged the effect of the Electoral College. While what you say is true, it's also true that some states that weren't considered "battleground" states before may become battleground states in the future. Obama beat Romney in California by 20 points, and the state is considered solidly blue, but if just 10% of the population votes third party instead of Hillary, California could go red. Likewise, Indiana is considered a solid red state, but if just 10% of the population votes third party instead of Trump, Indiana could go blue.

Tactical voting is a well honed practice where I come from. Folks seeing a shift showing the worst candidate might squeak in because of a surge of third party votes will switch to the worse but not worst candidate. This is especially true with such polarizing candidates as we have.

The interesting part of the video was the issue of FPTP voting. Couldn't agree more of how much it is a disservice to democracy.

[Chetnik]

Tactical voting is a well honed practice where I come from. Folks seeing a shift showing the worst candidate might squeak in because of a surge of third party votes will switch to the worse but not worst candidate. This is especially true with such polarizing candidates as we have.

The interesting part of the video was the issue of FPTP voting. Couldn't agree more of how much it is a disservice to democracy.

The unfortunate thing is it would literally take a constitutional amendment to change our voting system because the system is outlined in the constitution. It's really a shame that all these people are trying to "get money out of politics" instead of just trying to change our voting system. Even the alternative vote would be significantly preferable to the horseshit we have now.

[Pangean]

The unfortunate thing is it would literally take a constitutional amendment to change our voting system because the system is outlined in the constitution. It's really a shame that all these people are trying to "get money out of politics" instead of just trying to change our voting system. Even the alternative vote would be significantly preferable to the horseshit we have now.

Pretty sure the states decide how electors are handed out (ART 2, section 1, clause 2). As such they could institute a non-FPTP system if they wish to without a constitutional amendment.

[Hooked]

Why are the libertarians such weirdos?. This guy looks and acts like a fruitcake. I'm guessing he will take mostly left wing votes if he gets any votes at all.

[Emjay18]

Oh please, like a Libertarian has a shot at influencing anything. They have about as much support and representation as The Green Party.

He's not going to get press coverage, he's not going to be in debates and nobody is going to vote for him. That's it, end of story.

The green party is small as shit and even they get more traction than the libertarian party.


You will not find a bastion of support for a party that is nothing more than the acquired bastardization of anarchy by rich people who wanted free shit without paying taxes. You will not find a bastion of support for a party that is composed mostly of social outcasts making the world burn, and immensely spoiled middle aged white dudes who never learned responsibility.