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

151–160 of 267 posts

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

#151

Post by PhasmaFelis »

astazangasta wrote: post #126
Spoom wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with strategic voting arguments are several: 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest. 2) The idea of a linear political spectrum with candidates neatly arranged from 'good' to 'worse…

> 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest.

That makes sense in the abstract. In concrete reality, Trump is going to do his best to persecute hundreds of thousands of Americans, notably Hispanics and Arabs. (I don't say "Muslims" because I don't think his policies, or the people carrying them out, will recognize a functional distinction.) Shall we tell those people as they're being persecuted and deported that their suffering is okay, because they're contributing to the Greens possibly having a chance at winning in 20 years?

I don't think we can reasonably ask that of people.

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

#152

Post by rbcgerard »

awesomerobot wrote: post #29

Our voting system really needs to change, it's completely absurd that it hasn't just moved to a weekend or received special treatment as holidays.

pretty good piece on some possible changes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12202705

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

#153

Post by odesian »

GarrisonPrime wrote: post #136

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 T…

Send a message to who? The newly elected President from the 15% win? Some message. Get out and look for a candidate you believe in and spread the word.

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

#154

Post by wwweston »

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…

Two words: Nash Equilibrium.

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

#155

Post by theorique »

Rephrased another way, relatively few voters actually (1) register and (2) vote in the party primaries. These registered voters apparently represent the "most politically involved" 10% of the overall population. (It's also somewhat misleading to include minors or non-citizen residents in the denominator when they aren't able to vote - it makes the result artificially small.)

The primary system, while still susceptible to party insiders, is a lot more democratic than a system where political parties pick their candidates and say to the electorate "these are your choices, take it or leave it". (I won't address whether "more democratic" is a good thing, as that's a whole different can of worms.)

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

#156

Post by tanderson92 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #114
tanderson92 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

I don't agree with that. What I agree with is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they haven't exercised the option that they have to do so'. As I said earlier, Johnson poses no threat to the GOP, and Stein isn't seen as a significant threat (and isn't).

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

#157

Post by HelloMcFly »

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…

> Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option".

I find it disconcerting that one could use such hyperbolic language when voting for the "least worst" option is clearly the rational thing to do when there are direct, personal stakes from the *outcome. The ramifications to minorities by electing a very conservative Republican, or a pretend-Conservative who is a not-pretend racist like Trump, are quite significant. By doing anything, by action or inaction, to put Trump in the White House, there is a substantial risk of reduced voting access for minority voters. For poor voters, there is a substantial risk of losing the social safety net. For women, a likely increase in barriers to reproductive health.

No, you don't have to vote for the least-bad option. But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election. You're expressing at horror that people with skin in the game, where the stakes are quite high (or seem to be), are unwilling to make a political and philosophical stand at the expense of their own best interests. Until there is some level of voting system reform, we're likely stuck with first-past-the-post system that encourages two-party rule.

Of course I think you should vote for a third-party candidate if you want to. It's your vote! Maybe it'll lead to funding for their campaign next time. But I take great umbrage with the disgust and horror shown to people acting pragmatically because of what a third-party vote may lead to for them.

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

#158

Post by bluejekyll »

coldtea wrote: post #115
bluejekyll wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wast…

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/28985...

This is the year to do it. There is enough general dissatisfaction with the two parties that there is an opening for both the Green and Libertarian Parties to actually do something that's never been done before.

Which instead of spoiling one major party (Perot and Nader), they would spoil both.

Your wasting your vote if you don't use it to vote your mind.

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

#160

Post by VLM »

meritt wrote: post #79
the_duke wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really shocked me when I found out about it a few years ago. According to this statistic [1], 2.5 % of the electorate is disenfranchised. 2.5% is a HUGE amount for a 2 party system with elections often being very tight. This is somewhat less severe due to fellons probably belonging to demographics less inclined to vote, but it's still a large number. [1] http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID…

Less inclined? Felons are disproportionately black and black people overwhelmingly vote democrat. There's a reason the red-states are the ones with the strictest felon-voting regulations: They don't want non-whites voting. Take a look at the North Carolina Voter ID law that was just overturned if you need additional everyday evidence: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics/north-carolina-voter-...

Felons tend young, poor, and uneducated and adding those together they tend not to vote at all, although you're correct, if they live long enough, get a job, or graduate from school, THEN they'd be in demographic groups that do tend to vote D.

Both of you are more or less correct. OP is correct that they don't vote, you are correct that if they were in a higher social class that did vote they'd tend to vote D.

Most of the R party complaining about D party enfranchisement of felons is just BAU "must oppose anything my opponent does automatically" not an actual existential threat to the R party.

Post reply on HN