Can we talk about throwing your vote away?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Can we talk about throwing your vote away?

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.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 21:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:54

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.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 21:48

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.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 21:59

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.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 22:09

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)?

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 23:01

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

blackguy32 posted:

Yeah, and those things didn't happen under a Republican President. The point is that you can't just vote and do nothing else and expect things to change. You have to vote and on top of that work towards change.

I agree that voting in itself doesn't create a lot of change, but that's independent of whether voting for a third party is dumb or not.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 17:19

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

Voting third party, especially when most of America doesn't even vote, is stupid because your candidate will never, ever loving win AND our third parties have no real local presence to speak of. It is the most useless, pointless, self-centered way to use your vote. It sends no message.

Furthermore, we don't even have any good third parties. A third party vote is just a very tiny whine and nothing more.

Clinton will never win Idaho, and Clinton has no real local presence in whatever district of Idaho we want to choose, is voting for Clinton in district X of Idaho stupid?

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 17:31

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

BarbarianElephant posted:

If you vote in a large democracy, you won't ever get exactly what you want. You'll never get a president who not only agrees with everything you agree with, he/she also manages to push through all the changes that are most important to you, and reacts your way to any new world events (such as wars) that come up. Even Obama probably wishes that President Obama had pushed a few things harder or dealt with things a different way. It's an imperfect world.

The establishment will always push back against the ideals of the young, but the young become the establishment, and sooner or later the crazy starry eyed idealism is received wisdom.

It's not unusual for young people to refuse to vote on the grounds that the establishment is so far from their ideals that it is not worth engaging with, and that's why political pollsters tend to ignore the 18-34 age bracket. There's no point in worrying about the desires of a demographic that probably won't vote. Old folk vote with steely regularity, because they have realized that their vote really does matter, and that's why campaigns pander to them. They've lived through the process of their far-out ideas becoming "the way things are" and they understand that turning up counts.

People who vote third party realize it's an imperfect world, and they want their imperfect third party candidate to be president. People who vote third party also vote, so your last paragraph is confusing.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 17:46

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

They're also too stupid to understand their third party candidate will never, ever be president in a first past the post system, if they even know what that is.

Idealistic and stupid are a bad combination.

Hey, I asked you a question, if you're going to quote me, at least answer my question instead of making dumb assertions that can't possibly be supported.

Noam Chomsky posted:

If you don't think the government has been much more "progressive" - which is an empty term

As a bonus, you can't simultaneously claim a term is empty and also claim that someone incorrectly doesn't think that term applies to something.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 18:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

People only started calling themselves Progressive because Liberal became a dirty word thanks to Right Wing Media.

I agree progressive is a meaningless label, but I don't spend my time telling people that they are incorrect in thinking the current government is more progressive than previous governments, because I understand it is a meaningless label.

quote:

I already answered your question numerous times. Voting third party is absolutely pointless in any state since no one cares about your meaningless protest vote.

You haven't answered my question. Allow me to quote myself:

twodot posted:

Clinton will never win Idaho, and Clinton has no real local presence in whatever district of Idaho we want to choose, is voting for Clinton in district X of Idaho stupid?

Also I'm just going to reiterate that the previous post I quoted of yours contains nonsense assertions that can't possibly be supported, and you haven't even tried to support.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 18:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

In your example, were a person to vote for Clinton in that district, it would at least show a little more support for a candidate from an actual, viable party in that district

This is incorrect, the Democratic party isn't a viable party in that district.

quote:

Also, yes, if you don't feel Obama is at least more progressive than Bush and Bill Clinton, then you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about.

No if you think that Obama is more or less progressive than Bush or Bill Clinton, you've failed to understand that progressive is a meaningless term and as such no comparison can be made per your post here:

Noam Chomsky posted:

"progressive" - which is an empty term

quote:

How about you defend your assertion that voting third party will accomplish anything, ever? It has yet to accomplish anything at all, aside from being a spoiler of course.

Voting for a third party accomplishes signaling that that voter prefers that third party over the other candidates.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 19:01

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SSNeoman posted:

People who defend 3rd party, you guys realize this isn't a lifetime film right? There isn't gonna be a speech from the heart from a charismatic leading man to suddenly give your party 20% of the vote. If you were a serious contender, the two major parties would instead change their platform to include you. They'd do it simply on the basis of self-preservation, to cripple an opponent and stay ahead. Now tell me, why don't they do that right now? Why are Republicans not changing their stance to grab Libertarian voters?

Again, it's very possible that neither of the two major parties will ever listen to my concerns, but why should I think that neither of the two major parties ever listening to my concerns is a reason to vote for either of them? I'm not even denying your premise, I don't understand how you think "Vote Republican" follows from your premise.
edit:

BarbarianElephant posted:

And how do you change that? Hmm?

By always voting for the Democrat regardless of their policies so long as they are marginally better than the Republican?

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 19:07

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

How do you think a party becomes viable in a district? By getting more votes.

While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party is not a viable party in Idaho, so it seems like you still have some walking back to do. Further the fact that a party becomes viable in a district by getting more votes is equally true of third parties.

quote:

Not enough people vote third party to make that signal strong enough to mean anything, they never will.

What does it mean to "mean anything"? How would I demonstrate this sentence is wrong?

quote:

My question to you is why do you prefer Jill Stein or Gary Johnson over the leading candidates?

I prefer neither of these people over the leading candidates. You should stop asking questions and fix your answers to mine.

SSNeoman posted:

You. Do. Not. Vote. To. Encourage. Policy. Change.

I do.

quote:

You do literally anything else. Write letters, write blogs, organize protests

I also do these.
edit:
Just to be clear you do understand that casting a vote for President doesn't preclude you from doing literally anything else right?

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 19:15

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

How would the Democratic Party become a viable party in Idaho? By getting more votes. If you feel your vote wouldn't matter in Idaho then why not stay home or even throw your vote away on one of the two major parties? You're not defending the idea of voting third party in the way you believe; you're essentially proving it's as meaningless as we're all saying.

You asserted:

Noam Chomsky posted:

Voting third party, especially when most of America doesn't even vote, is stupid because your candidate will never, ever loving win AND our third parties have no real local presence to speak of.

This reasoning equally applies to voting Clinton in Idaho and voting Trump in California. I'm not the one that says your vote wouldn't matter in Idaho, you are the one arguing that. I think your vote matters in Idaho because voting Clinton in Idaho at least signals you would rather have Clinton than Trump even if Trump will inevitably win Idaho.
edits:

Noam Chomsky posted:

If you don't prefer any of the third party candidates to the leading candidates, then what are you even arguing for?

It's possible to have preferences and also understand that other people have preferences and want to voice their preferences. Further there are more than two third party candidates.

BarbarianElephant posted:

Your vote is never going to make a huge difference because you are one voter in a country of 318 million. Expecting *your* vote to be always the deciding one is naive.

I am not expecting this.

SSNeoman posted:

Justify this.

Umm... how? Like I vote to influence policy, that is a fact. It's not as effective as other mechanisms to influence policy, but it's a thing I do, and it doesn't preclude me from wielding those other mechanisms.

twodot fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Oct 7, 2016

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 19:21

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Noam Chomsky posted:

The difference is that a Democratic president is a theoretical possibility, thus making those votes in Idaho worth more than token votes from a few idiots voting for Gary or Jill.

Why is this true? You earlier used a standard of "mean anything" what possible result that could "mean anything" could happen from a person voting Clinton in Idaho that couldn't happen from a person voting third party?

quote:

Sending a signal that you'd prefer a Democratic candidate, rather than a Republican, in a red state is more worthwhile than signaling that you'd prefer one of the third party grifters. The major party at least has a GOTV machine it may use more heavily in your state next time if it believes there may be more support there, whereas the third parties have no GOTV machine.

Why does this matter if a Democrat will never win Idaho? Why won't you answer my other questions?

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 19:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

ImpAtom posted:

Because like it or not popular vote totals still matter in terms of perception and going "my vote doesn't matter!!!" contributes to the mindset that makes other people take the same tone and prevents any sort of incremental shifts.

Right, popular vote totals matters, and therefore voting third party matters even if they will never win. We agree.

Noam Chomsky posted:

Pretty sure you just don't understand my answers or are just trying not to.

I very specifically don't understand your answers, I've asked clarifying questions which you have ignored.

WampaLord posted:

"Never" isn't a true and automatic assumption. If more Democrats vote in Idaho than Republicans, it goes blue.

Yes and if more Greens vote in Idaho then it goes green.

quote:

Do you understand why blue and red states are blue and red?

I thought this was a good answer:

Bushiz posted:

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

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 19:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Yak of Wrath posted:

And Idaho won't go green because Jill Stein has made no efforts towards making her candidacy or party viable. Being on a town council and hanging out with Putin one time does not make a viable candidate.

Yes, and also Idaho won't go blue because statistics exist. My point here is if you think voting only for candidates who can win matters, that leads to ridiculous outcomes in certain areas. If you don't think that voting for someone that can win matters, the argument against voting third party becomes pretty thin. You have to pick one of the two. Arguing you must not vote Green because they can never win, but voting Democrat in Idaho is a good idea doesn't make any sense.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 20:02

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

WampaLord posted:

Arizona and Georgia were two "never go blue" states that might go blue this election, which kind of defeats your point.

Right, every election you need to reevaluate whether your state is likely to be in contention because:

Bushiz posted:

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

This doesn't change the fact that Trump will win Idaho. So my point seems intact.

Yak of Wrath posted:

I'm not saying don't vote for them because they can't win, I'm saying don't vote for them because they aren't even trying to win.

Why does this distinction matter? Like I agree that Jill Stein is specifically a bad candidate, but the fact that Jill Stein is dumb doesn't have anything to do with whether voting third party is fundamentally stupid.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 20:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Ignatius M. Meen posted:

If you're voting third party to 'send a message' you should be writing letters instead because I guarantee "Hi I normally vote D but I have a serious problem with your history of hawkishness and am seriously considering not voting for you because of that" is a lot clearer of a message than "voted Green". "voted Green" might mean you hate vaccines, or oil, or just have a crush on Jill Stein, none of which are really messages that are going to be taken seriously. Sure it's only an intern that will read them and respond most likely but constantly writing in about how the policies you hate affect your loved ones in South America will still get noticed and maybe even make it up the ladder if you're lucky as opposed to your +1 vote to the tally of <5% Green voters which will just be tossed in the trash. I get it, it really sucks to be on the business end of the US foreign policy stick but voting third party doesn't send the message you want the major parties to hear, you gotta bring your grievance to the major parties directly.

Hello, it is possible to both vote and write letters.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2016 07:32

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Main Paineframe posted:

Yes, but only one of those things is going to cause meaningful change in the party's positions. If you really want to vote for antivaxxers or people who literally don't care about the outside world, if those are really the positions you hold, then sure, vote third-party - just don't do it because you think your ineffectual protest vote will swing the Democrats to the left.

Ok so you and I both disagree with the person saying you should write letters instead of voting because it's utter nonsense to think that voting for someone somehow prevents you from writing letters, and literally no one needs to choose one over the other?

# ¿ Oct 8, 2016 16:24

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

SSNeoman posted:

"Well the dems are winning, so it's okay for me to vote third party now! Right guys? Right??" We gave you a ton of posts on why this is bad idea, mathematically, politically and otherwise. Yet y'all still come back to the same point.

You really need to blame the people posting about the spoiler effect, if you don't like people posting about why the spoiler effect is a non issue in much of the country.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 17:36

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Main Paineframe posted:

Because the leadership doesn't have complete control over who runs, and if they get too out of touch with the base, their candidates will get primaried. If a conservative candidate makes it onto the general election ballot in the first place, then clearly the base wasn't really all that ticked off about that candidate after all.

While this is the true, "both the party leadership and the party base disagree with you on what you consider key issues" doesn't look like much of a reason to vote for that party. Like I understand that Democrats don't agree with me, the question is "Is voting for Democrats more likely than not voting for Democrats to change their mind?"

quote:

If you want to influence the direction of a party, you need to care about the political process more than just 1-2 months every 4 years.

This is certainly true, but unrelated to the question of what is a good strategy for voting once it is time to vote.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 17:57

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

stone cold posted:

In the senate, Hillary voted differently than Bernie on 7% of their votes-just 31 bills!

For like the billionth time, this is a nonsense metric since the 7% could easily be the bills that matters and the 93% could be post office renames. Also the committees they worked on only partially overlapped, so we can't even directly compare their actions there.

quote:

Hillary made sure at state that everyone could use their preferred gender on their passports.

I think we need to distinguish between "Did something any reasonable human would do" and "Did something leftist". Like it's true that a large section of Republicans are anti-trans for no reason other than hatred, but I think "not actively oppressing a minority" doesn't become a leftist political position because of that.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 19:49

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

stone cold posted:

You are aware that the votes don't go into the aether right, like are you aware you can actually go compare them.

Sure, but you are still making a bad argument. If you want to make an argument about their Senate records being similar, you have to explain why it's not the case that the 7% are different aren't a huge deal. Like if "We should give tax breaks to rich people" is in that 7%, that's pretty important. I'm not going to go read 31 Senate bills because you are too lazy to finish your argument.

quote:

Also, seeing as transgender people and, indeed women have yet to be recognized as a suspect class, and seeing the level of vitriol we still have in this country toward transgender people, it's important to recognize how huge it was to have your preferred gender on your passport.

It's important to acknowledge and even celebrate that US passports work this way. I don't think Clinton deserves any real credit for managing to be the first non-trash (on this specific metric, possibly still trash on other metrics) Secretary of State. Acknowledging people's basic identity isn't a thing people should get praise for.
edit:

Main Paineframe posted:

I don't see why you expect a significant political party to pick up issues no one really cares about.

I don't expect them to, I would like them to. Maybe they will never pick up these issues, but again "this political party will never care about the things you care about" doesn't look like much of a reason to vote for that party.

quote:

What's important is voting in primaries, to influence who the Democratic party puts up and show which positions you care about.

This still doesn't invalidate any strategy with regards to how you vote after the primary has occurred. Like I agree, the primary is more important, but that's totally irrelevant to any decision that is made after the primary happens.

twodot fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Oct 11, 2016

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 22:17

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

stone cold posted:

What I'm seeing here is you don't want to go have to look and confront reality vis-�-vis the voting record so you won't bother to check because it conflicts with your little point of view.

I mean I have, and your argument is trash, and you aren't doing anything to demonstrate it's not trash.

quote:

The other super annoying thing is that I guarantee you if it had been any other politician you would've called the passport a triumph for civil rights. But because it's 'Shillary' it's the bare minimum decent thing to do, that stupid bitch.

Eh, gently caress you. Like quote me doing this or shut the gently caress up.

quote:

Like gently caress you, if it was so obvious, how come it wasn't being done?

Because basically all of our national politicians are trash human beings.

quote:

But again, I think that you and your ideological-purity-obsessed ilk are mostly white, cisgendered, straight men of means who don't actually know anybody who this helped and don't really care about 'identity politics.' You and yours are safe in the event of the rise of white supremacy and neofascism, so you can do as you please without thinking of the consequences.

I'm also safe from politicians starting and continuing wars, so it seems awkward to say that "your concern about people unrelated to you is causing you to not address the concerns of a different set of people unrelated to you, so you are bad". And to cap it off, even if I'm a verified bad person that doesn't seem like any sort of argument about how I should vote.

Who What Now posted:

You're right, it shouldn't be. But currently, in the political climate of America right now, it is. We are only just now starting to make these changes, support for them cannot be taken as a given yet.

I think it's actually a pretty big knock on the Democratic party if we can't just assume all of their top level politicians would support such a measure.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 23:28

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

I was under the impression that "leftist" was specifically designed to cover a sliver of the electorate, like why invent a new term if you just mean Democrat?

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 15:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

WampaLord posted:

This thread is talking about American politics, so the rest of the world's definition doesn't matter. In America "left" and "liberal" both mean the same thing.

I like to call myself a descriptivist, but let's get a little prescriptivist for a bit. Let's suppose you're right and that, in America, there's broad, even overwhelming agreement that "leftist" (I'll assume you writing down "left" here is a typo and not an intentional distraction from the conversation) and "liberal" both mean the same thing. Even in that case why in the world should we accept that for the purposes of this thread? A thread that's specifically about third parties, and a thread that has a specific need to talk about people further left of the left-most major party. What's the utility of "leftist" and "liberal" meaning the same thing? We've already got the word "liberal".

Maybe if we held a poll we would discover that most Americans think Clinton is leftist, and you'd win the argument of whether Americans think Clinton is leftist, but who cares?
edit:

BiohazrD posted:

Jesus Christ shut the gently caress up.

Do you have ANY idea how huge this was for trans people everywhere? Their lovely state government couldn't deny who they were anymore.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-2016-transgender-rights-passport-policy-state-department-lgbt-equality-214007

This is very good for trans people. Clinton failing to treat trans people like trash is not laudable. Like me giving a starving person food is very good for the starving person, but it's not particularly laudable, it's just a thing you should do.
edit2:

ImpAtom posted:

Senator Clinton has one of the, if not the, most impressive resumes in politics, a frankly absurd amount of experience in a ton of different positions.

This just seems factually wrong. She's a 1.3 term Senator and Secretary of State for four years. That's plenty of experience to be President, but I'd say any two term Governor has a similar amount of experience and more relevant experience than her.

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Oct 12, 2016

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 16:56

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

WampaLord posted:

The original argument was "Hillary Clinton holds leftist positions" which I find to be accurate when you consider the American version of leftism.

Someone else piped up and said "No, leftism to the rest of the world means being anti-capitalism" which I thought was irrelevant given that the thread topic is about American politics.

First, no, here's the original contention:

SSNeoman posted:

She is the best, only chance to get a leftist candidate into the oval office

But again, for the purposes of this thread, what is the value in using the American version of leftism, even if I concede your understanding of the American version of leftism is correct? We're not writing a document that intended for the American people here. I think, in a thread about third parties, any definition of "leftist" such that Clinton is a leftist candidate is extremely un-useful. What term do you suggest we use in this thread for what the rest of the world calls leftist?

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 17:07

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

WampaLord posted:

"Actual" leftism by your definition is such a small part of the American population as to be irrelevant. That may suck, but it's true.

In a thread about third parties we're going to be talking about irrelevant parts of the population by definition.

quote:

I dunno, socialist?

And for leftists who aren't socialists?

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 17:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Taerkar posted:

Literally no political experience or involvement on a national level before 2000.

This seems in conflict with the "Bill Clinton is not running for President" thing. I mean she worked on some policy, but it pretty much all failed to my recollection.

BiohazrD posted:

By this metric, nothing anyone has done ever would be considered laudable.

I'm not sure how you could derive this from two data points, but whatever.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 17:13

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Bob le Moche posted:

What do people who think that third party voters are "throwing their vote away" think of third parties themselves? Like, should third parties just pack up and go home instead of continuing to exist and thus making people throw their votes away?

There's a lot of people who think that third parties should shut up about the Presidential election and focus efforts on local politics. This kind of fundamentally ignores what third parties are trying to do. If you want to focus on local politics and succeed, you typically do it by working with whatever major party most closely matches your policies, because that's how you actually get elected. There's certain areas where a Green or a socialist can get elected to local positions, but the third parties kind of by definition don't need to focus there.
edit:
Like Sanders running for President as a Democrat, if my goal is to enter local politics and win, I'm going to identify as a Democrat no matter how distasteful I find the party, because the path is way easier (unless my district hates Democrats, and then why do I need support of an organized party?).

Motto posted:

That's a weak reason to write off the passage of good policy. A mere lack of bigotry isn't worthy of praise, but fighting and suceeding in assisting people who face enough hate for it to be ingrained in one of the major party platforms is.

When you are Secretary of State, such a policy doesn't require a fight. Like I agree it's awkward the Republicans are being actively hateful, but that doesn't cause not being hateful to be leftist or even particularly good.

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 12, 2016

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 17:22

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Who What Now posted:

As opposed to the presidency, where Libertarians and Greens have so much success, right?

They're relatively successful at their goals. The fact that you know Jill Stein's name shows her vanity run is working, and while I think it's unlikely Johnson will hit 5%, they may be close, possibly close enough to argue for lowering the threshold next cycle, it's hard to predict anything about this cycle. If you think they are trying to actually win the Presidency, you've fundamentally misunderstood what they are doing.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 17:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Who What Now posted:

Both of them will be completely forgotten by 12:01am on Nov. 9th, and they will have accomplished nothing.

Eh, fivethirtyeight has Johnson at at least 6.1% in all of their models. Third parties tend to under-perform their polls, but hitting 5% definitely accomplishes something, and just asserting this without evidence isn't really convincing of anything and looks more like a person who is desperate for reality to conform to their expectations and not a person who's conducting a sober analysis of what will happen.

NewForumSoftware posted:

If you want to call me a single issue idiot voter, feel free

This is very annoying, everyone is a single issue voter on some issue, it's just a question of how many people are typically on the wrong side of any particular single issue. (Extreme example: murder all humans)

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 18:10

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Who What Now posted:

You aren't compromising, though. You're just pretending to compromise while actually doing nothing at all except patting yourself on the back as hard as possible. What's the point of doing something so useless? Besides to jerk yourself off, I mean.

Is there any situation where not compromising is a valid option? Like if I walk up to and ask for your wallet will you be willing to compromise down to only half your cash? I understand arguing that Clinton has compromised enough, and that your priorities are out of whack if you believe otherwise, but I don't understand insisting someone compromise on a thing they don't want to compromise on.

twodot fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 12, 2016

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 20:39

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Standing up to Russia is actually the opposite, as it ensures they won't get the idea that they can actually pull a Ukraine on EU members.

I think this thread has a little too much "This policy doesn't lead to the effects you think it does because X" and not enough "Wanting this policy doesn't justify voting third party because Y". Like maybe NewForumSoftware is wrong about this particular thing, and maybe you can convince them they are wrong about this particular thing, but it doesn't really say anything about how people should vote in an election, and there aren't objective answers to this anyways so you probably can't convince them.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 20:52

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Who What Now posted:

You have no earthly idea what would incite WWIII. The only thing worse than a single issue voter is one that doesn't actually know anything about their issue.

Can we all agree that everyone (edit^^^: all reasonable people I care to have a conversation with) is a single issue voter on the topic of "Starting WWIII"? Given that, all you've said here is "I disagree with your predictions of the future" and not "Your predictions of the future fail to justify your voting strategy".
edit:

NewForumSoftware posted:

I don't know, if you want to use this thread to interrogate me about every international conflict (and keep doing so after I answer them all) or every policy position I have, trust me, you will find holes.

Yeah this. Maybe you can convince me that forums poster NewForumSoftware is dumb, but doing that won't convince me that their voting strategy is unreasonable given their understanding of reality.

twodot fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Oct 12, 2016

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 20:55

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Bob le Moche posted:

Why do so many arguments about voting seem to rely on identity-formation so much?

"Are you a serious person or a racist sexist? Your vote determines that"

Personally I don't really see the act of voting as a way to self-define, which is why i find the constant talk of "moral purity" also a bit suspect.

There must be certain acts of voting that self-define. Like I can't imagine anyone voting for a measure that explicitly bans black people from voting as saying anything other than "I am a racist". We can discuss whether or not Trump is at that level, but there are clearly policy preferences that flow from identity.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2016 15:15

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

stone cold posted:

And do you not think it's a cowardly position to take that because your state is safe you can then toss your vote to a third party?

What's cowardly about this, and why is being cowardly bad?

stone cold posted:

Once again, why does and should everybody else have to pick up the slack for the sake of your ideological purity?

In what sense is there any slack to pick up? Are you saying you wish you could vote third party but can't because you think it's more important to run up the score in California than vote your conscience? My understanding is that you think voting for Clinton is good. If there's a large group of people who want to vote third party but can't for fear of spoiler effects we're just in the lizard scenario from Hitchhiker's Guide.
edit:
The notion that electing a President requires 200 units of effort, and by voting third party we are somehow forcing a person to engage in 2 units of effort when they should have only needed to commit 1 unit of effort is really bizarre to me.

twodot fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 13, 2016

# ¿ Oct 13, 2016 21:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

stone cold posted:

It's a cowardly position as I said literally in the next sentence because if you really had the 'courage' as it were and firm sense of belief in the ideals in your third party of preference, it would be more consistent for you to say you would vote third in a battleground state.

I really don't understand how this follows. If I lived in a battleground state and voted for Clinton, it wouldn't be because I was fearful of voting third party, it would be because I thought voting Clinton was the best choice in front of me. Swaying the party is a thing that has value, getting Clinton elected over Trump is a thing that has value, weighing those values and making a decision has nothing to do with courage, it's just doing what you think is best.
edit2:
I forgot, again, even if I agree why is being cowardly bad? Like, ok, you got me, I'm a coward, now what?

quote:

The slack lies in those folks like you who are wavering and dithering and going 'well both sides really are equally as bad.'

Yeah I've never said this, nor do I understand how you think this is slack. Please identify for me the group of people who are performing extra effort, and what is the extra effort they need to perform as a result of my vote.
edit:
Heads up, the group of people should be in Washington state.

quote:

Certainly I think there are tons of people who are dissatisfied with the two party system, and in a reality where the third party options were sane and not vanity parties, I think people would feel conflicted as well. I think, despite the flaws of the third parties now, there exists a small subset of the populace who feels conflicted about voting third party. People are pragmatic though, hence Duverger's Law. That isn't a lizard people thing, that's the reality of living in the single member plurality system in which we do.

The people under the lizard government are also behaving pragmatically.

quote:

I do think voting for Clinton is good, I really like her. She has through her policies made a measurable positive impact in my life and in the world, and I agree with most of her positions. I have no qualms about stating my distaste for Gov. Aleppo Von Private Prisons and Dr. Russia Lovin' Anti-Nuclear Power.

I don't understand why you think of people voting for Clinton as a thing requiring effort if you think these things.

twodot fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 13, 2016

# ¿ Oct 13, 2016 22:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:54

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Penisaurus Sex posted:

Well, what policy do you adapt? There are single issue voters, obviously, so if your goal is to attract the voting bloc of the green party, what do they care about? Are they voting green purely out of environmental reasons, or purely out of economic reasons, or a combination of the two? It seems like you'd need far more information to make a decision than just kind of aimlessly going off into leftist economics.

Which I'm completely for, btw. I just don't see how voting 3rd party shows the 2 major parties any kind of actionable information.

There are exactly two possibilities, either my vote can influence the Democratic Party in my favor or not. If it can, my best possible option is to vote for the party closest to my opinions (ignoring battleground states). If my vote can't possibly influence the Democrats, who cares who I vote for?

# ¿ Oct 14, 2016 05:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Can we talk about throwing your vote away?

«‹›3 »