Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by hashkb » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #117

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.

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 esse…

If you want your vote to have any chance of affecting the outcome you have to pick the dem or the gop because one of them will win. Nobody else can afford to win. A lot has to change before our votes really mean anything, and nobody in power has incentive to make those changes.

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

#132

Post by Kinnard » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:40 PM UTC

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 may certainly boycott the farce— among other options.

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

#133

Post by kingnothing » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #117

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.

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 esse…

To the sibling who said that voting for a third party accomplishes nothing, that is incorrect. If a third party receives 5% of the overall vote, that party's next presidential candidate becomes eligible to receive about $90M in federal funding for the following election cycle under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?

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

#134

Post by corysama » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

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…

AKA: The Problem with First-Past-The-Post Voting

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

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

#135

Post by metaphorm » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:43 PM UTC

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.

what is the appeal of "reaaally moderate" to you? 8 years of moderate, ineffectual government has been the Obama administration exactly.

just because Fox News accuses Obama of being a radical leftist doesn't make it even remotely close to true. Obama is precisely the kind of moderate you're asking for. It's gotten us nowhere.

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

#136

Post by GarrisonPrime » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

Friendly reminder: Not voting can be a vote in and of itself. A vote of "no confidence".

True, voting for an alternative candidate will take a percentage of the votes away from Clinton or Trump, and having them win by a lower percentage would be a satisfying way to sock it to the system and send a message. (Although, knowing the media, if the stats started to look bad they would probably start reporting Clinton and Trump vote percentages only as percentages of the Clinton+Trump votes, rather than as percentages of all votes...)

But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters? I think having a President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message.

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

#137

Post by PhasmaFelis » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:45 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #117

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.

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 esse…

Please for God's sake don't do this. (Unless you actually believe that Trump and Clinton are equally bad.) With a two-party system, staying home or voting a third-party/write-in is functionally identical to giving half a vote to the candidate who represents you the least.

Yes, this is fucked up, and yes, it needs to change. Voting for Ed Snowden will not change it.

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

#138

Post by chrisseaton » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #125

chrisseaton wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless this is an argument for literally direct democracy why do we need to vote separately for the prime minister? Do you want to vote for every minister individually? There are more than a hundred so it may take a while. Instead, we elect a representative, who groups together with like-minded representatives to form a government and run the country. Keep it simple. I think in UK politics talking about apathy and ig…

> Unless this is an argument for literally direct democracy why do we need to vote separately for the prime minister? Do you want to vote for every minister individually? There are more than a hundred so it may take a while. This is a textbook example of a "False Dilemma"-type fallacy. Either don't vote for the PM or vote for "more than a hundred" ministers. Those aren't the only two options and you know that. A vote…

Well I didn't actually present any dilemma - you're imagining that. I just asked if you thought we should also vote for all other ministers to see how many votes you thought we should have. I didn't say those were the only two options.

I'm in favour of regularly electing a representative and then letting them get on with it. I favour simplicity and I think too many votes on different issues gets in the way of a coherent government.

If people can't name their MP then that's their business. Perhaps they're focusing their time and energy on something they believe is more important. Maybe they're curing cancer while we argue politics. Who knows.

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

#139

Post by allendoerfer » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

kingnothing wrote: post #133

lettergram wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 esse…

To the sibling who said that voting for a third party accomplishes nothing, that is incorrect. If a third party receives 5% of the overall vote, that party's next presidential candidate becomes eligible to receive about $90M in federal funding for the following election cycle under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?

Click on "x minutes ago", reply there.

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

#140

Post by sbjustin » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 2:48 PM UTC

gotherewhere wrote: post #75

Don't see why folk don't vote for Gary Johnson. He appeals to both Bernie Sanders voters and disenfranchised Republicans.

If more people were supporting Johnson he'd get on the debate stage and actually stand a shot. It's non-sense that people are saying they won't vote for him now when they don't have to decide till Nov 7th. Support him now and if he doesn't poll well enough after the debates go do your never X vote.