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

171–180 of 267 posts

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

#171

Post by peatmoss »

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…

I plan on holding my nose voting for whoever I think can beat Trump. If you want somewhere to channel your political energies, channel it into getting Instant Runoff Voting in your state. Or some other non-plurality based voting system.

We really need some way where people can vote conscience without spoiling.

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

#172

Post by omegaworks »

gotchange wrote: post #119
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…

> 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?

What better way to do that then make the two primary parties afraid of losing ground to third parties?

In a race where two third party candidates can siphon votes off the two primary parties, it's finally in the interests of the main parties to move towards something like Ranked Choice.

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

#173

Post by astazangasta »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #151
astazangasta wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is exactly the same thing we hear every election. You can't climb a hill if you don't ever try to go up.

Of course I don't believe in elections so this whole debate is academic to me. In a world with ALEC and WPP, elections have nothing to do with governance.

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

#174

Post by VLM »

thomasfoster96 wrote: post #28
laichzeit0 wrote: post #10

I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.

It's 9% of the most politically active and engaged section of the population. It's not a random cross section of the entirety of the US population.

Certainly there exists a value X where 100-X percent of the population is not engaged at all and is little more than a source of random numbers or demographic counts.

If X is 10% then its an excellent measure of the will of the actively thinking electorate and its not the fault of the statistician that Americans don't care about politics.

If X is 50% or so then there's 4 semi-motivated voters per primary voter which is getting fuzzy.

Note that about 20% of the population vote in non-presidential elections and 50% vote in presidential elections. I'd propose that the delta is due to tradition and heavy social signalling to get out the vote, but that 30% don't really care and absent intense PR activity in support of voting, would not vote. Unfortunately 20% is too high to clearly support the first criteria and 20% is too low to support the second criteria.

I think its really annoying that there is no mathematically trustworthy answer to is 9% enough. Annoyingly its probably good enough to not be ridiculously far off and bad enough to not be correct a significant amount of time.

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

#175

Post by trolly »

bad_user wrote: post #11
trolly wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering both nominees have the highest disapproval rates I would say your statement is almost certainly incorrect. If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past the post system.

Why is it incorrect? According to the statistic, 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year and about 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all. Add to that 103 million that are not eligible for voting. So if I'm not mistaken, only 18.5% voted in the primaries. You mention they have the highest disapproval rates, but how is disapproval expressed if not by voting?

We may be using the word "representing" differently.

I took it to mean "those 9% are statistically representative of the majority of americans views/choices/opinions/desires/whatever".

Where as it seems you meant it as "those 9% represent a plurality of the votes cast in the primaries." Yes?

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

#176

Post by VT_Drew »

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…

>True, voting for an alternative candidate will take a percentage of the votes away from Clinton or Trump

No it won't. The only wasted vote is voting for someone you don't believe in. Google Gary Johnson.

> President elected by only 15-17% of eligible voters would send a pretty good message

This would be largely ignored and not covered my mainstream media. It would go completely un-noticed by the vast majority.

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

#177

Post by delecti »

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…

2) Answering first to set up some points. Political beliefs can't be neatly arranged on a linear spectrum, but certainly far fewer people who might really prefer Green are going to instead settle for Trump. I agree that it's less clear about the Libertarian party, as they seem to draw a bit from "both ends of the spectrum", but I think it's safe to say that the Green party isn't spoiling things for the GOP to the same extent that they are for the Dems.

1) I agree that there is value in building strong third parties, but that value comes at the cost of the risk of the spoiler effect as I described. If presidential elections happened every year, or if there was a bigger push from the bottom (State and Legislative elections) to elect more third parties, then maybe the risk would be worth it to establish the base, but that's not the case, and a President can do a lot of damage in 4 years.

3) I think both Trump and Bernie have demonstrated a more viable way to accomplish that this election. Both have moved the Overton Window in a direction that the entrenched party candidates were unwilling to prior to this election. For example, Bernie pushed the Dem platform adopt "raise the minimum wage to $12, or maybe more", when they weren't strongly pushing for it prior.

4) I think that 2016 Romney sounds pretty good, but pandering 2012 Romney still sounds pretty awful. Similarly 2000 McCain sounds great in retrospect, but 2008 or even 2016 McCain sounds pretty awful as well.

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

#178

Post by dingaling »

bsbechtel wrote: post #145
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 other comments here saying voting third party is the worst possible option, no, it's not. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. Furthermore, it's putting a two vote differential between evil and a third party candidate that has to be 'undone' by someone willing to vote third party (-1 third party you didn't vote for, +1 for evil). If you are saying you have to choose between two bad candid…

That's an interesting concept and I'd extend it by saying that one vote for least-worst requires the efforts of two third-party voters to compensate; one just to cancel-out and one to compensate for the lost 'potential' of the original voter.

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

#179

Post by logfromblammo »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #137
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…

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.

Based on past performance, voting will not change it, period. You either have to run for office yourself, donate millions in campaign funding, or work your way up the hierarchy in one of the two major parties.

Given that the maximum involvement most people desire in politics is visiting polling stations to vote twice a year, or maybe volunteering to help campaign for one specific candidate, my advice is to just vote for whomever would make you feel good as you exit the polls.

If you would otherwise stay home, you can still make a meaningful difference by voting for a third party, because there are percentage-of-the-total-vote thresholds (varying by state) that impact whether that party has to overcome a crippling barrier to entry (again) for the next election.

The third-party candidate is not going to win. But you can help prevent that party from being required to collect 50000 signatures (costing them $100000) to get on the ballot next time. If you hate both major candidates, this election is not really your fight, anyway. You can, however, vote for "better luck next time" by making a third party seem more like a serious contender.

Vote for the candidate that most closely reflects your desires. As long as the two major parties can always manipulate voters into "lesser of two evils" and choose between "douche vs. turd sandwich" or "stupid vs. evil", they will never have any incentive to change tactics. Vote for a single-issue party if you support their position. Otherwise, vote Libertarian, Green, or Constitution if you have the option.

Check your state's ballot access laws. It may be a better option to strategically not vote at all for a particular office, such as governor, to reduce the signature burden for ballot access in the next election.

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

#180

Post by threallytho »

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.

Here's a suggestion, for you and everyone suggesting you don't vote: Get over it.

(Content intended for voters in a US-style FPTP system. Mileage in IRV and other systems may vary.)

No one will see your vote. The structure of elections is not such that you can state your ideals. The question is about your preference for the actual outcome of the contest.

In programming terms, you're not being asked to return the largest integer; you're given a choice of two integers, and asked to return the larger. It doesn't matter if neither one looks objectively "large"-- refusing to return anything will not help this algorithm generate larger numbers.

Maybe it's a stupid algorithm, but that's not relevant, either.

To stay HN-neutral I'll leave this generic, though it really isn't: Regardless of your feelings about the candidates in this election in an objective sense, you should have a strong dispreference for one candidate under the other. In a proper decision theory, that should translate into a strong relative preference for the other candidate to be the actual winner of the contest.

That doesn't mean you support them absolutely, or morally. It just means you're voting in line with rather than against your true preference for outcome.

And that should translate into strong support in the voting booth, though of course that doesn't and shouldn't have to translate into strong support in public opinion.

If you don't vote for the candidate you strongly relatively prefer because your absolute preference for them is low -- you don't want to send a message that "this candidate is objectively good" -- you are using a different protocol than the election, and what will be received is "the relative preference for this candidate is fairly low". What you should expect is for the election to perceive that you support your dispreferred candidate significantly more than you actually do.

And that's what should make you sick.

Post reply on HN