Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
rizuhbull
Mar 30, 2011

Is this possible? I don't understand how anyone can come to this conclusion unless they know they're bullshitting and just want to sway you to vote for their candidate. Apologies in advance for my terrible writing.

Basically I only ever hear this from one side. It's always from the Democrats and it's always regarding third parties. Why is voting for someone you actually want to elect a wasted vote? Because of the chances of them winning? Electability? But that electability is hosed because of this same argument. Isn't it Newcomb's paradox in action? The main perpetrators being the DNC, who's power hinges on you believing this. I was alive to see Nader "lose" the election for Gore. But I always felt it was bullshit from people who don't want to blame their poo poo candidate and a broken system. If you want to keep the one vote=one choice voting system, then you don't get to complain when it bites you in the rear end.

You can say because we have a plurality voting system that allows the loser to win by splitting the popular vote, but where on the scale do I need to be to participate? Where's the threshold? I loving hate choice A, but also choice B can go gently caress themselves. I don't like either of their policies or personalities, so why one over the other even if you have to chose? "I can't believe you'd chose dog poo poo over human." he says with a mouthful of poo poo. What difference does it make?

The most compelling argument I can find is the nuclear one with Trump's impulsiveness. But I'm not sold on him being stupid in quite that way. He's poo poo at speaking but I've never seen him physically attack anyone or take impulsive action in a physical manner. I just feel like if the country won't move to a ranked voting system, then why let the current voting system dictate who you vote for? Especially when both parties have an extreme interest in keeping it.

rizuhbull fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Oct 6, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Seraphic Neoman
Jul 19, 2011


Well let's start with the fact, and it is a fact, more often than not, that people's hatred of Hillary is irrational. Why do you hate her? She's power-hungry (is she?), she's a hawk (you did reading about that?), she's a liar (not according to Politifact, and that's compared to other politicians, let alone Donald Trump), she did Benghazi (disproved time and time again) and so on. Sorry if this is partisan, but I'm an immigrant and people's hatred of Hillary is inexplicable to me. She is certainly not "human poo poo" and she honestly seems like a reasonable, if awkward, person.

But let's go to your question

The reason we say that not voting Democrat one of the two major parties christ you are picky bitchbabies and pulling the lever despite your feelings is a waste of a vote is because while your vote matters, you do not. I do not give a poo poo about your political feelings. The people in this library I'm currently in do not give a poo poo about your political feelings.
When you make a vote for third party to be "be in line with your morals", you are doing this to soothe yourself and nobody appreciates or cares. It's an inherently selfish action which is justified to nobody but yourself.
The great political machine will simply look at your third party, or lack of a vote altogether, and deduce that you are part of a population that supports the third-party candidate/does not care about politics due to whatever. Your internal struggle, and its resultant vote, will not be analyzed or appreciated. The only thing that will be noticed is the mark you put on your voting card.
Now if you vote Repblican (I use republicans so I can try to remain neutral despite it not being my party of choice) you are doing several things: You show your support to a candidate that has majority, you show you agree with their stances on issues and you show that your demographic leans republican, by at least one more vote. That's important. It shows and hardens political control over the state.
Third party votes don't accomplish this. They do not have the money nor the political clout to be part of the political sphere. And not voting just shows voter apathy and nothing else.

Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 7, 2016

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SSNeoman posted:

When you make a vote for third party to be "be in line with your morals", you are doing this to soothe yourself and nobody appreciates or cares. It's an inherently selfish action which is justified to nobody but yourself.
I don't know about you, but when I vote third party it's to signal to major parties that I like the third party and they should shift to be in line with the third party.

quote:


The great political machine will simply look at your third party, or lack of a vote altogether, and deduce that you are part of a population that supports the third-party candidate/does not care about politics due to whatever. Your internal struggle, and its resultant vote, will not be analyzed or appreciated. The only thing that will be noticed is the mark you put on your voting card.
Maybe this is true, but this seems like a problem with the great political machine and not my voting strategies. Like the number of people who vote for Ralph Nader went up and down, the number of people who don't vote goes up and down, surely the political class should understand these are factors that can be manipulated? "You're reasonably trying to signal your policy preferences to politicians, but the politicians are dumb and will ignore you" seems like a pretty bad argument.

Seraphic Neoman
Jul 19, 2011


twodot posted:

I don't know about you, but when I vote third party it's to signal to major parties that I like the third party and they should shift to be in line with the third party.

It's not. It's a signal that you are part of the "outlier independents" whose vote they failed to capture. too bad so sad. Nowadays third party candidates account for maybe 5% of the vote. That's a chunk to be sure, but parties won't shift policies just for that.
Additionally, They'd much rather change policies to snipe voters from the other side. After all, they cripple the other guy this way and get more support for their policies.

twodot posted:

Maybe this is true, but this seems like a problem with the great political machine and not my voting strategies. Like the number of people who vote for Ralph Nader went up and down, the number of people who don't vote goes up and down, surely the political class should understand these are factors that can be manipulated? "You're reasonably trying to signal your policy preferences to politicians, but the politicians are dumb and will ignore you" seems like a pretty bad argument.

It is a problem with the political machine, but you're not changing it with your single vote. Until you get 10-15% of the vote, nobody cares or wants to treat third-party as anything more than an outlier. "You are statistically insignificant so politicians don't care and won't care." Blame yourself or god.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

If you want to change the political landscape, about the worst way to do it is by voting in a FPTP election.

If you want to change the political landscape, you should do everything outside of the election to change people's minds to support different policies, and then vote for the best viable candidate.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

twodot posted:

I don't know about you, but when I vote third party it's to signal to major parties that I like the third party and they should shift to be in line with the third party.

All major third parties are genuinely worse than the 2 major parties and shifting american governance towards any of them is a terrible idea

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SSNeoman posted:

It's not. It's a signal that you are part of the "outlier independents" whose vote they failed to capture. too bad so sad. Nowadays third party candidates account for maybe 5% of the vote. That's a chunk to be sure, but parties won't shift policies just for that.
Additionally, They'd much rather change policies to snipe voters from the other side. After all, they cripple the other guy this way and get more support for their policies.

It is a problem with the political machine, but you're not changing it with your single vote. Until you get 10-15% of the vote, nobody cares or wants to treat third-party as anything more than an outlier. "You are statistically insignificant so politicians don't care and won't care." Blame yourself or god.
This still looks like "The political class isn't going to do what you want anyways, so any possible vote you could make is thrown away regardless" to me.

OwlFancier posted:

If you want to change the political landscape, about the worst way to do it is by voting in a FPTP election.
This is true.

quote:

If you want to change the political landscape, you should do everything outside of the election to change people's minds to support different policies, and then vote for the best viable candidate.
The "best viable candidate" analysis doesn't make any sense in locations where there is exactly one viable candidate.
edit:

Mel Mudkiper posted:

All major third parties are genuinely worse than the 2 major parties and shifting american governance towards any of them is a terrible idea
I suppose it's good that minor third parties exist then.

LGD
Sep 25, 2004

SSNeoman posted:

It's not. It's a signal that you are part of the "outlier independents" whose vote they failed to capture. too bad so sad. Nowadays third party candidates account for maybe 5% of the vote. That's a chunk to be sure, but parties won't shift policies just for that.
Additionally, They'd much rather change policies to snipe voters from the other side. After all, they cripple the other guy this way and get more support for their policies.


It is a problem with the political machine, but you're not changing it with your single vote. Until you get 10-15% of the vote, nobody cares or wants to treat third-party as anything more than an outlier. "You are statistically insignificant so politicians don't care and won't care." Blame yourself or god.

This is not a compelling counterargument to the notion that you can signal by voting third party. Nobody's individual vote matters, but you can't say that third parties have no influence because they're considered worthless outliers in one breath while acknowledging that any third party getting more than about 5% of the vote is going to attract major party attention in the next. If you think a significant number of people feel similarly disgusted with their options that seems like an argument in favor of the effectiveness of casting a third party protest vote.

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
Third parties can hold some of the views that appeal to outliers because they're at absolutely no risk of ever having to implement any of them. A major party isn't going to chase after 5% of the vote when 4% of that would probably only change their minds if they made impossible promises, and the other 1% would require concessions that would drive away 1% of the existing support for the party.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

twodot posted:

I suppose it's good that minor third parties exist then.

Why would a major political party be expected to notice or care if a handful of votes go to a minor third party most people can't even name? I thought this was about pushing the major parties in the right direction?

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008



SSNeoman posted:

Well let's start with the fact, and it is a fact, more often than not, that people's hatred of Hillary is irrational. Why do you hate her? She's power-hungry (is she?), she's a hawk (you did reading about that?), she's a liar (not according to Politifact, and that's compared to other politicians, let alone Donald Trump), she did Benghazi (disproved time and time again) and so on. Sorry if this is partisan, but I'm an immigrant and people's hatred of Hillary is inexplicable to me. She is certainly not "human poo poo" and she honestly seems like a reasonable, if awkward, person.

But let's go to your question

The reason we say that not voting Democrat and pulling the lever despite your feelings is a waste of a vote is because while your vote matters, you do not. I do not give a poo poo about your political feelings. The people in this library I'm currently in do not give a poo poo about your political feelings.
When you make a vote for third party to be "be in line with your morals", you are doing this to soothe yourself and nobody appreciates or cares. It's an inherently selfish action which is justified to nobody but yourself.
The great political machine will simply look at your third party, or lack of a vote altogether, and deduce that you are part of a population that supports the third-party candidate/does not care about politics due to whatever. Your internal struggle, and its resultant vote, will not be analyzed or appreciated. The only thing that will be noticed is the mark you put on your voting card.
Now if you vote Repblican (I use republicans so I can try to remain neutral despite it not being my party of choice) you are doing several things: You show your support to a candidate that has majority, you show you agree with their stances on issues and you show that your demographic leans republican, by at least one more vote. That's important. It shows and hardens political control over the state.
Third party votes don't accomplish this. They do not have the money nor the political clout to be part of the political sphere. And not voting just shows voter apathy and nothing else.

"why do people hate hillary"
[hillary fan calls someone who votes third party a loving retard whose opinion doesn't matter]

Endorph
Jul 22, 2009
https://twitter.com/dankmtl/status/221978990720724992

that said after reading ssneoman's post i want to vote for johnson too

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

The "best viable candidate" analysis doesn't make any sense in locations where there is exactly one viable candidate.
edit:

Best and only, occasionally.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Why would a major political party be expected to notice or care if a handful of votes go to a minor third party most people can't even name? I thought this was about pushing the major parties in the right direction?
I mean the politicians are the ones that want us to vote for them. If they don't care to analyze why people voted for similar platforms but not their party, then I guess I'm stuck, but we're back to "Well, you cast the best signal you could, and the political elite just doesn't care about your opinion", which is arguably true, but not an effective way to change how I vote.
edit:

OwlFancier posted:

Best and only, occasionally.
I think you misunderstood, if I live in Texas, I'm definitely not voting for Trump despite the fact that Trump is the only person who could possibly win Texas.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

twodot posted:

"Well, you cast the best signal you could, and the political elite just doesn't care about your opinion", which is arguably true, but not an effective way to change how I vote.

It has nothing to do with the political elite ignoring your opinion.

The major parties are the major parties because they represent the greatest likelihood of getting a plurality of votes in a cultured fractured nation. The only way to make them change their mind is to convince them that by shifting in one political direction or another they will win the majority of American voters. Primaries accomplish that goal. Voting for a third party in the general election doesn't push the two major parties in either direction because they have no reason to believe listening to you would win them a plurality. They know this because your opinion just got crushed in the general election with 5% of the popular vote.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

I think you misunderstood, if I live in Texas, I'm definitely not voting for Trump despite the fact that Trump is the only person who could possibly win Texas.

Oh sorry I mean viable as in affiliated with a viable poltiical entity.

Not necessarily individually viable.

Bushiz
Sep 21, 2004

The #1 Threat to Ba Sing Se

Grimey Drawer
In one of, like, five states it is important to vote for Hillary but elsewhere it is just noise in the machine. People will tell you that it's important to vote for Hillary because the popular vote is a metaphorical referendum on white nationalism, but Hillary and Stein, and even Johnson, really, count as a vote against white nationalism, so the referendum on it becomes trump vs. not trump. If you live in, like, Florida, vote for Hillary really hard, but if you're in NY, CA, TX, or any place similar, vote for whoever you feel like for whatever reason you want, and pay attention to your downballot races. Your city controller is likely to have a much larger influence on your day to day life than the president.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Bushiz posted:

but Hillary and Stein, and even Johnson, really, count as a vote against white nationalism, so the referendum on it becomes trump vs. not trump.

you are delusional if you think this is how it will work

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

OwlFancier posted:

Oh sorry I mean viable as in affiliated with a viable poltiical entity.

Not necessarily individually viable.
What's the point of voting for someone affiliated with a viable political entity who has no hopes of winning the race you are voting in? (edit: Other than obviously that you believe they are the best candidate regardless of affiliation with a viable political entity)

Mel Mudkiper posted:

It has nothing to do with the political elite ignoring your opinion.
[snip]
they have no reason to believe listening to you would win them a plurality. They know this because your opinion just got crushed in the general election with 5% of the popular vote.
I can't reconcile these. If they will only listen to people who would win them a plurality and my opinions won't win them a plurality, then they are ignoring me. It's probably ok for them to ignore me, I'm just some dude, but arguing that the major parties will never listen to my interests therefore I must vote for one of the major parties is just really awkward to me.

Bushiz
Sep 21, 2004

The #1 Threat to Ba Sing Se

Grimey Drawer
And, I mean, it's true that your third party vote for president in a safe state won't have any effect to push the major party to the left, but your major party vote for president in a safe state is similarly just noise to make yourself feel better about Having Done Something.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Bushiz posted:

And, I mean, it's true that your third party vote for president in a safe state won't have any effect to push the major party to the left, but your major party vote for president in a safe state is similarly just noise to make yourself feel better about Having Done Something.

why do blue states turn blue?

twodot posted:

I can't reconcile these. If they will only listen to people who would win them a plurality and my opinions won't win them a plurality, then they are ignoring me. It's probably ok for them to ignore me, I'm just some dude, but arguing that the major parties will never listen to my interests therefore I must vote for one of the major parties is just really awkward to me.

I am not saying you must vote for a major party even though they will never listen to you. I am saying if you want a specific party to listen to you, vote in the primary. By the time it hits the general, you are making a referendum on the two possible directions the country could go. Its not about the one that exactly matches your interests, its about finding the one that is going to push the country in the best direction.

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Oct 6, 2016

NaanViolence
Mar 1, 2010

by Nyc_Tattoo
The other charges generally leveled against Hillary are bullshit, but it is okay to call her a hawk because of her huge mistake in supporting OIF after 9/11.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

What's the point of voting for someone affiliated with a viable political entity who has no hopes of winning the race you are voting in? (edit: Other than obviously that you believe they are the best candidate regardless of affiliation with a viable political entity)

It's not like you have anything better to do with your time.

Bushiz
Sep 21, 2004

The #1 Threat to Ba Sing Se

Grimey Drawer

Mel Mudkiper posted:

why do blue states turn blue?

Because of generational and demographic shifts where personal choice is meaningless.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Bushiz posted:

Because of generational and demographic shifts where personal choice is meaningless.

Nope, try again

Soup du Jour
Sep 8, 2011

I always knew I'd die with a headache.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Nope, try again

If enough people vote, say, Green, to the point where a previously blue state is not, would that not be exactly the type of sign that would "convince them that by shifting in one political direction or another they will win the majority of American voters."? I mean we know from history that all that happens is 16 years of hippie-punching over Nader, but c'mon man.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Soup du Jour posted:

If enough people vote, say, Green, to the point where a previously blue state is not, would that not be exactly the type of sign that would "convince them that by shifting in one political direction or another they will win the majority of American voters."?

Sure, but it also won't happen

Green party doesn't poll 3% because there is a vast majority that is just too practical to vote with their heart.

Bushiz
Sep 21, 2004

The #1 Threat to Ba Sing Se

Grimey Drawer

Peanut President posted:

"why do people hate hillary"
[hillary fan calls someone who votes third party a loving retard whose opinion doesn't matter]

Hillary's biggest problem by far is that her most vociferous proponents online are know-it-all wannabe insiders. No one is swayed by Kevin Drum feverishly hammering out a bad list of bullet points for why you're an idiot if you aren't enthusiastic about Hillary.

Hillary is a fine politician with a good record that's a little hawkish for my tastes. If I take a break from the uspol thread I find myself liking her more and more but anytime I encounter someone who is trying to convince me that Hillary is actually the most progressive person to ever hold any kind of office it makes me spitefully mad at her.

Seraphic Neoman
Jul 19, 2011


Endorph posted:

https://twitter.com/dankmtl/status/221978990720724992

that said after reading ssneoman's post i want to vote for johnson too

keikaku dorei

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

Mel Mudkiper posted:

Sure, but it also won't happen

Green party doesn't poll 3% because there is a vast majority that is just too practical to vote with their heart.

You can't have this both ways; a solidly blue or red state becoming non-blue/red also won't happen, because it is vanishingly unlikely statistically (just like a third party winning).

Seraphic Neoman
Jul 19, 2011


Peanut President posted:

"why do people hate hillary"
[hillary fan calls someone who votes third party a loving retard whose opinion doesn't matter]

I didn't call them a retard I called them selfish. If you genuinly believe in Johnson's policies, well I do lol at you, but fine whatever. If you're voting for it because you have a blood pact against hillary well


Bushiz posted:

In one of, like, five states it is important to vote for Hillary but elsewhere it is just noise in the machine. People will tell you that it's important to vote for Hillary because the popular vote is a metaphorical referendum on white nationalism, but Hillary and Stein, and even Johnson, really, count as a vote against white nationalism

I stopped reading right here because :laffo: dude.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Ytlaya posted:

You can't have this both ways; a solidly blue or red state becoming non-blue/red also won't happen, because it is vanishingly unlikely statistically (just like a third party winning).

Grondoth
Feb 18, 2011
You cannot throw your vote away unless you are voting for a write in candidate that isn't registered as one. In that case, someone looks at your vote and literally discards it because otherwise they'd have to tally every joker who writes in The Joker and that'd be a waste of time. Everything else is just voting for something, even something that won't win. It's okay to do this if you believe in it, we have the right to vote the way we choose.

Seraphic Neoman
Jul 19, 2011


If you want to have a third party which is a genuine contender, you needed to start EARLY. You need to drum up enough interest in a third party and you to prepare your gameplan well in advance. Libertarians did not have a gameplan. They had a convention that ran Excel on Windows XP to tally votes. Their idea of a ground game was



You need to do way better than this amateur hour nonsense. And if you don't have the funds nor the support to do it, well I guess you don't have a third party now do you?
I agree that having more parties would help politics in American, at least in principle, but for most it's simply not practical.

You know what time it's not worth having this debate and making this point? When voting time is coming and it's too late to change anything.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Ytlaya posted:

You can't have this both ways; a solidly blue or red state becoming non-blue/red also won't happen, because it is vanishingly unlikely statistically (just like a third party winning).

To follow up

If Voter Turnout among minority groups went to 100% based on current demographics NE, TX, GA, LA, and MS would all go blue.

Voting even in a red/blue state matters

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Op, I'll hold your hair back while you vomit your vote away.

Soup du Jour
Sep 8, 2011

I always knew I'd die with a headache.

Bushiz posted:

Hillary's biggest problem by far is that her most vociferous proponents online are know-it-all wannabe insiders. No one is swayed by Kevin Drum feverishly hammering out a bad list of bullet points for why you're an idiot if you aren't enthusiastic about Hillary.

Hillary is a fine politician with a good record that's a little hawkish for my tastes. If I take a break from the uspol thread I find myself liking her more and more but anytime I encounter someone who is trying to convince me that Hillary is actually the most progressive person to ever hold any kind of office it makes me spitefully mad at her.

Seriously. When people start declaring that Stein is an agent of the Kremlin or that comparing Stein and Trump is like comparing Polio and Smallpox, it's clear that they're disappearing into '08 levels of delusion. The difference being that they know in their hearts that Clinton is going to be Obama but more of a hawk, and so resort to tearing into anyone (even if they're polling at 1%) who they feel threatens :abuela:.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Soup du Jour posted:

Seriously. When people start declaring that Stein is an agent of the Kremlin or that comparing Stein and Trump is like comparing Polio and Smallpox, it's clear that they're disappearing into '08 levels of delusion. The difference being that they know in their hearts that Clinton is going to be Obama but more of a hawk, and so resort to tearing into anyone (even if they're polling at 1%) who they feel threatens :abuela:.

Or because Stein has no meaningful policy ideas and no idea how to govern. Do you really think the only reason people find Stein a laughably bad candidate is because she is challenging Hillary?

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005
Here's a hint, everyone who loses an election gets nothing. Winner takes all winner minus one vote gets zero. If you vote for a guaranteed loser you didn't vote at all.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Bip Roberts posted:

Here's a hint, everyone who loses an election gets nothing. Winner takes all winner minus one vote gets zero. If you vote for a guaranteed loser you didn't vote at all.
Are you suggesting that everyone in Idaho should just vote for Trump (or perhaps not at all)?

  • Locked thread