Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 267 posts

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#111

Post by [deleted] »

cderwin wrote: post #104
matwood wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is quite an interesting time. My liberal friends are all irked because Bernie got hosed by the DNC. My conservative friends are irked because the RNC did not do more to stop Trump. Talk about a role reversal with the party of the people and the party of the establishment. Personally, I see so many problems with both candidates that it makes me sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.

There's another option (though scantily mentioned and likely unpopular): not voting at all. At least then you won't bare any responsible for putting a Trump or Clinton in the White House.

[deleted]

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#112

Post by awinder »

eximius wrote: post #109

Can we just find someone reaaally moderate or even someone who contractually obligates themselves to doing literally nothing in office and then vote for them? Literally any 3rd party candidate we can all agree on to vote for instead of these two.

I'm curious about what, in the current state of America, screams "we can just do nothing for the next 8 years and it'll all be good"

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#113

Post by humanrebar »

Spoom wrote: post #93
xlxlxlx wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel you have to vote for one of the two?

I just had a small debate about this with some friends of mine. Let's imagine you live in a battleground state, and for the sake of argument, let's also assume that you're in one of the 48 states that are "winner take all" in that they assign all of their electoral college votes to the overall popular vote winner in that state. Say that state is Ohio. In 2012, the popular vote in Ohio was as follows (Source: Politico…

> As a Green supporter, this would likely be the worst case scenario result.

Confined to a single election. I have a theory that lately we're seeing the longer-term consequences of limiting agency to large sections of the population.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#114

Post by chrisseaton »

tanderson92 wrote: post #102
chrisseaton wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I must simply have different understanding of the word monopoly and what it means to legally enforce one, so I guess we're not going to convince each other. Gary Johnson is standing in fifty states isn't he? He's not doing that illegally is he? So there is no monopoly. If there is then it's not being enforced, legally or illegally.

I didn't claim there was a monopoly this year, though, did I. In fact the GOP establishment would want Johnson to stand in 50 states as many of them oppose Trump and resent that he has taken over their party. Some would call that a straw man argument: establishing a fact I never disputed. On the other hand, there is evidence presented above that that occurred in previous elections (2004, 2000).

> why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence

That was the original question (from someone else). It sounds like we've agreed that the answer is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they don't'.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#115

Post by coldtea »

bluejekyll wrote: post #87
matwood wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all of the candidates only two have a chance of winning. If I vote for someone other than those two, the one that I think is the worst may get elected.

This perspective is self-fulfilling. Vote for your best candidate, Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are real candidates, and could win, just like Bernie Sanders (which no one expected). We need to force the two parties to loosen their grip on the political machine in the US. The only way we do that is by supporting third party candidates. If you want to vote Green, go convince a conservative to vote Libertarian. I did…

>This perspective is self-fulfilling.

Unless you can massively convince everyone to do vote for their actual best candidate, it's also very pragmatic.

From experience from other countries, the way shifts that allow a third party/candidate break a "duopoly" happen is slowly -- they incresingly get 5, 10, 15% of the vote, until a momentum builds and people start (rightly) feeling than voting for them doesn't just waste their vote and lets their least favorite of the 2 major candidates elected.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#116

Post by matwood »

Spoom wrote: post #93
xlxlxlx wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel you have to vote for one of the two?

I just had a small debate about this with some friends of mine. Let's imagine you live in a battleground state, and for the sake of argument, let's also assume that you're in one of the 48 states that are "winner take all" in that they assign all of their electoral college votes to the overall popular vote winner in that state. Say that state is Ohio. In 2012, the popular vote in Ohio was as follows (Source: Politico…

Great explanation that I didn't have time to type up myself below. Thanks!

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#117

Post by lettergram »

matwood wrote: post #44
icc97 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree. The article appears to be painting a very dark picture that 91% don't want the candidates. Where as this is just stating the obvious of what happens in every country that first puts forward a leader of a party that is contending to win the overall election.

It is quite an interesting time. My liberal friends are all irked because Bernie got hosed by the DNC. My conservative friends are irked because the RNC did not do more to stop Trump. Talk about a role reversal with the party of the people and the party of the establishment. Personally, I see so many problems with both candidates that it makes me sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.

You don't actually have to vote for the least worst one... I recommend looking to third party candidates. The libertarian party has two pretty solid lineup and polls third at the moment (like 11% or something this election cycle).

That being said, you can also protest vote by putting in "Edward Snowden" or something.

Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option". You're essentially electing a temporary dictator (potentially at least), please don't vote for someone you dislike. Even if you dislike one less than the other, you still dislike them...

Try not to let fear influence you when selecting a leader. A leader needs to guide and protect the group, not be the least bad member of the group.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#119

Post by gotchange »

bluejekyll wrote: post #87
matwood wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all of the candidates only two have a chance of winning. If I vote for someone other than those two, the one that I think is the worst may get elected.

This perspective is self-fulfilling. Vote for your best candidate, Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are real candidates, and could win, just like Bernie Sanders (which no one expected). We need to force the two parties to loosen their grip on the political machine in the US. The only way we do that is by supporting third party candidates. If you want to vote Green, go convince a conservative to vote Libertarian. I did…

> We need to force the two parties to loosen their grip on the political machine in the US. The only way we do that is by supporting third party candidates.

May I suggest that you guys explore elections reform as an option to get fresh faces on the political stage and rejuvenate the whole political process?

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#120

Post by humanrebar »

awinder wrote: post #112
eximius wrote: post #109

Can we just find someone reaaally moderate or even someone who contractually obligates themselves to doing literally nothing in office and then vote for them? Literally any 3rd party candidate we can all agree on to vote for instead of these two.

I'm curious about what, in the current state of America, screams "we can just do nothing for the next 8 years and it'll all be good"

I think the argument is against doing something especially rash or corrupt because of the current state of America. What would happen if another Watergate occurred in the next few years?
Post reply on HN