|
twodot posted:Are you suggesting that everyone in Idaho should just vote for Trump (or perhaps not at all)? It doesn't matter as they are 100% disenchanted from the presidential vote.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
If you vote for one of the two major parties, there is a possibility, no matter how vanishingly small, that you will tip the balance. Remember that for the first time ever we are witnessing a matchup between a campaign with a legendary GOTV machine and a campaign with basically none. This is unprededented; we have no idea if this will cause Clinton to overperform her polls, and if so, how much. We could theoretically see a 5% swing on Election Day. If you are part of a swathe of people not contributing to that because you feel warm and fuzzy voting for a socialist splinter party/are a single issue IT procedure voter/feel like it won't matter/get too high to vote, that becomes fractionally more massively unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
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. This is why I decide what candidate to vote for by looking at the polls and voting for whoever comes out on top, no matter what their politics are. I'm in this to win damnit!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Quorum posted:If you vote for one of the two major parties, there is a possibility, no matter how vanishingly small, that you will tip the balance. Remember that for the first time ever we are witnessing a matchup between a campaign with a legendary GOTV machine and a campaign with basically none. This is unprededented; we have no idea if this will cause Clinton to overperform her polls, and if so, how much. We could theoretically see a 5% swing on Election Day. If you are part of a swathe of people not contributing to that because you feel warm and fuzzy voting for a socialist splinter party/are a single issue IT procedure voter/feel like it won't matter/get too high to vote, that becomes fractionally more massively unlikely. Why would anyone considering doing those things care about the potential to run up the score in favor of a candidate they (at best) feel ambivalent towards?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
The failure of the system through Trump can be an Avenue for changing that system. As it stands Hillary will represent the left, fail to bring improvement to low skill labour, and those demographics will associate leftist politics with Hillary ' s term. likely causing them to support more right far right policy in the time after.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Sethex posted:The failure of the system through Trump can be an Avenue for changing that system. Accelerationism is an appalling program supported overwhelmingly by those who would not be harmed by the excesses of the oppression they seek to bring about in the name of the greater good. If you endorse it you are worse than sincere trump voters, because at least they aren't trying to bring about their goals through reverse loving psychology, and in theory you should know better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted: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? Stein is not a good candidate because she's got an ego and appears to be unaware that she's a protest vote. But do you seriously think that the Hillary Is The Most Progressive Candidate Ever group is not tearing into her far more than A)is necessary considering her low standing in the polls and B)compared to 2012, when she also ran? I'm pretty sure there were no "Stein is the Hep C to Romney's AIDS!" takes four years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Soup du Jour posted:Stein is not a good candidate because she's got an ego and appears to be unaware that she's a protest vote. But do you seriously think that the Hillary Is The Most Progressive Candidate Ever group is not tearing into her far more than A)is necessary considering her low standing in the polls and B)compared to 2012, when she also ran? I'm pretty sure there were no "Stein is the Hep C to Romney's AIDS!" takes four years ago. We are in a thread asking sincerely why voting for third parties is dumb, explaining that Jill "Wi-Fi Melts Kids' Brains" Stein is an egotistical anti-science hack is necessarily part of the answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Quorum posted:We are in a thread asking sincerely why voting for third parties is dumb, explaining that Jill "Wi-Fi Melts Kids' Brains" Stein is an egotistical anti-science hack is necessarily part of the answer. Actually, since everyone agrees that a third party candidate is not getting elected, its a fairly open question why people would put too much weight on the personal shortcomings of a candidate being voted on as a form of protest or value signaling. Saying "but they're clearly not anywhere near as ready to form a government as Hillary 'Superpredators' Clinton!" is entirely beside the point when literally nobody is expecting them to. A third party actually making a credible challenge to one of the major parties is a different scenario entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Accelerationism is an appalling program supported overwhelmingly by those who would not be harmed by the excesses of the oppression they seek to bring about in the name of the greater good. If you endorse it you are worse than sincere trump voters, because at least they aren't trying to bring about their goals through reverse loving psychology, and in theory you should know better. Yeah or you're a hysterical alarmist that writes as though this guy is an antichrist. Sethex fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:This is why I decide what candidate to vote for by looking at the polls and voting for whoever comes out on top, no matter what their politics are. I'm in this to win damnit! Uhh yeah, you should vote for who you want to win. If they can't win then why would you vote for them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted: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? No one gives a poo poo about Jill Stein's ability to govern because no one voting for Stein expects her to win. It seems very difficult for some people to grasp that they know 100% that their candidate will not become president. SSNeoman posted:I stopped reading right here because Think what you want about the general collection of ideological libertarians, and I'm not voting for him, but Gary Johnson has made several unambiguous statements in support of black lives matter. Mel Mudkiper posted:To follow up This is wildly disingenuous when talking about reality. Like I've been working on fighting voter suppression in Texas for more than a decade and to say "well if [utterly fantastical circumstance that has been systematically suppressed for generations] happens then won't YOU feel dumb" is bananas insulting condescension from coasties to everyone doing the work down here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:34
|
|
dude.
|
cross-posting from political comics:Hitler B. Natural posted:Meanwhile, webcomics artist David McGuire illustrates how weird it is to be a voter in Texas in 2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Uhh yeah, you should vote for who you want to win. If they can't win then why would you vote for them? You do realize wanting someone to win is independent of their chances, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:You do realize wanting someone to win is independent of their chances, right? It's not at all actually. I want Bob Barker to be the next president but I'm not voting for him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Then there's voting according to your conscience despite the ramifications which is not simply symbolic but the whole ethical basis for having a democracy. Everyone here views this as abetting something terrible to transpire through inaction even though no matter how you vote outside a two party frame work you're going to be held personally responsible by one party or the other. I'd still vote Nader over Clinton, and I like Clinton.
Lamb Chowder fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Either democracy works and all votes count or democracy is a crock of poo poo and no votes count. Whenever someone voting for one of the main parties says "Don't vote for Vermin Supreme because you're just wasting your vote!" What they really mean is "Vote for my candidate because I'm insecure about my sports team's chances of winning!" If a vote for any candidate, republican, democrat, libertarian, green, anarchist is a waste then all votes are a waste.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Either democracy works and all votes count or democracy is a crock of poo poo and no votes count. Whenever someone voting for one of the main parties says "Don't vote for Vermin Supreme because you're just wasting your vote!" What they really mean is "Vote for my candidate because I'm insecure about my sports team's chances of winning!" If a vote for any candidate, republican, democrat, libertarian, green, anarchist is a waste then all votes are a waste. No, voting determines a winner. They then hold office and determine policy. It's not some etherial abstraction in the world of maximum moral relativity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted: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 Yep. Assuming I don't support Hillary because I'm hard right and not because I vote Socialist every loving election like a true patriot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Throwing your vote away is real. I strongly agree with the earlier advice to work for all the change you want outside of voting, then vote two party. Jack B Nimble fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Like I've been working on fighting voter suppression in Texas for more than a decade and to say "well if [utterly fantastical circumstance that has been systematically suppressed for generations] happens then won't YOU feel dumb" is bananas insulting condescension from coasties to everyone doing the work down here. You've been working on voter suppression in Texas for a decade but don't believe voting in solid red/blue states matters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:You've been working on voter suppression in Texas for a decade but don't believe voting in solid red/blue states matters? Not for president, not at the moment. Maybe in a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Note that I said "solidly." Most Americans live in states that are definitely not going to flip. Mel Mudkiper posted:To follow up This isn't how statistics works. Using this same logic, you could also say "well if trends suddenly drastically changed a third party could win!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This isn't how statistics works. Using this same logic, you could also say "well if trends suddenly drastically changed a third party could win!" There is a difference between support and turnout if 100% of Green Party supporters turned out they might somehow manage an astounding 6% of the vote and would still not win a single state, that's not so with the Democratic party. The point is that blue states do not magically come from the ether of demographics. Blue states are blue states because more Democrats vote. Do more democrats vote because there are simply more democrats? Sure. But, arguing that a single vote is meaningless has a compounding effect on the entire electorate. Even a vote in a hard blue state matters because people like you showing up and voting is what makes it a blue state. Six months ago no one thought AZ could go blue, but now it might because enough Democrats are motivated to actually go out and turn a traditional guaranteed red state blue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Not for president, not at the moment. Maybe in a decade. This attitude right here is part of the reason it's taking so long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
rizuhbull posted: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? Honestly, I think people need to quit acting like the country or a party owes them a candidate they prefer and instead understand that either candidate A or candidate B is going to be President and no matter how much each is loathed, they are not loathed in exactly the same way, and one of the two would be more preferable to the voter. If that voter is in a non-swing state, the person's vote is irrelevant so the most influence they can possibly have is to vote for a 3rd party candidate. It's still irrelevant, but less irrelevant than voting for the lesser of two evils. If that voter is in a swing state, and they do not vote for the less onerous candidate of the one likely to win, they are literally voting against their own self interest. Get passionate about your chosen candidate in the primaries and help them all you can. Once the nominees are selected, you pick the outcome that sucks least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Throwing your vote away is real. Hillary is a neoliberal with a more hawkish foreign policy than Obama; you are really stretching the definition of "ideologically similar." Edit: Do like this paragraph, though: quote:The Democratic and Republican parties benefit from the spoiler effect created by the existing U.S. plurality voting system, because it deters people from voting for other parties and for independents, in order to avoid "wasting their vote" or causing a spoiler effect. It can also deter 3rd party and independent candidates from running because by doing so they could split the vote thereby causing an election result they do not want. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Hillary is a neoliberal with a more hawkish foreign policy than Obama; you are really stretching the definition of "ideologically similar." I mean, I'd object to your meaningless categorization of her in the category that literally means nothing but Corporate Whore to you at this point, perhaps link you to her voting record, her public statements, her issue pages, the party platform... but none of those would change your mind. You were always going to go and vote Stein or La Riva or something. I really hope it's La Riva, at least she seems to think science is an okay thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
I'm open to being corrected as I'm mostly working off secondhand knowledge here, but don't even countries with more represenative systems than FPTP end up with essentially two parties holding major power anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Sethex posted:As it stands Hillary will represent the left, fail to bring improvement to low skill labour, and those demographics will associate leftist politics with Hillary ' s term. That would be much much better for leftists than the current situation where people associate them with Stein's wifi paranoia and Baraka's Holocaust-denier buddies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
People who vote third party are immature idiot babies living in a bubble reality. The establishment already writes off you and your pointless votes. You're not making any kind of difference; you're maintaining the status quo by not participating in one of the two major parties and pulling them in the direction you'd like to see them shift.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The establishment already writes off you and your pointless votes. For pointless votes people like you sure seem to care a lot about them
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:"why do people hate hillary" lol no kidding, the contempt dems have for people who aren't reflexively pro-dem is next level
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are you suggesting that everyone in Idaho should just vote for Trump (or perhaps not at all)? You should definitely vote Democrat if your going to vote that way in that state even if all the lds luddites are going to overturn your vote. Especially if you're in ada county, since that stands the best chance of being a blue county. I mean it is lovely for Democrats there but from what I saw before I left, their numbers were increasing at least
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:For pointless votes people like you sure seem to care a lot about them Well yes. Those votes could be running up the score and/or helping flip swing states. Someone is taking a valuable thing and pissing it away instead of applying it productively and it affects us all, even if the value of that individual vote is minute. If too many people go the wrong way with the though process things can go bad. I recycle my soda cans even though each of them is just one can. If everyone on the earth goes "it's just one can" and stops recycling we are back to square one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Why do people only ever support Third Parties once every four years and never at any other time. Christ, you might as well write in Santa Claus as your vote. If you're serious about supporting the Green Party or whatever then you need to focus on actually building a real voting base starting at the local level. Shockingly nobody ever actually does this. I wonder why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do people only ever support Third Parties once every four years and never at any other time. Christ, you might as well write in Santa Claus as your vote. If you're serious about supporting the Green Party or whatever then you need to focus on actually building a real voting base starting at the local level. You're really elevating party platforms and stances over the candidates themselves, here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Dutchy posted:lol no kidding, the contempt dems have for people who aren't reflexively pro-dem is next level then please go anywhere else on the internet and change your mind, if you're honest at least
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
How much do you guys get paid to shill for the Democrats? Are the benefits good? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do people only ever support Third Parties once every four years and never at any other time. Christ, you might as well write in Santa Claus as your vote. If you're serious about supporting the Green Party or whatever then you need to focus on actually building a real voting base starting at the local level. While I do think you're right, I have a feeling it would make Democrats even more indignant since every other argument they make is premised on them being the only option for leftists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:18
|
|