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

#181

Post by delecti » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

TimJRobinson wrote: post #129

So why does the USA still have first past the post presidential voting? Is someone, anyone, in the government pushing for this to change? It seems painfully obvious to anyone paying attention that switching to a better voting system where you can still vote for 3rd party candidates and not have your vote go to waste would be a huge improvement.

The electoral college is defined in the Constitution, and changing that is never easy. Anybody with the power to change things from the top is probably up there because of taking advantage of the way things currently work.

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

#182

Post by toomanybeersies » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

thomasfoster96 wrote: post #18

What astounds me the most is that party membership in the United States is actually very high compared to most other countries (except for India). Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) - and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures. Most AFL football clubs would have more membe…

I most of the reason is that in a lot of countries, you don't get as much choice in who leads the country. The prime ministerial candidate isn't chosen by a primary, and the PM can be deposed by parliament without much trouble (as we've seen with Australia).

In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote for as well. An MP told me once that 1/3 of voters are independent.

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

#183

Post by dingaling » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:35 PM UTC

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…

I'd argue that deliberately spoiling your ballot sends a more powerful message.

Not voting cannot be distinguished between abstinence on principle versus apathy. However making the effort to go to vote and then making a protest is much clearer.

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

#184

Post by eximius » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

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 nothing is objectively better than the results we'd get from either candidate.

We will not improve our situation, but I don't believe we'll devolve into chaos either. With Trump he might bomb someone or aggravate existing problems or something else unimaginably stupid. With Hillary we'll just see an increase in corruption and an expansion of the rights of corporations at the costs of the individual.

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

#185

Post by eximius » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

metaphorm wrote: post #135

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.

Better than blatantly corrupt or blatantly racist?

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

#186

Post by gremlinsinc » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

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.

I honestly believe Clinton is worst than Trump (I also believe Trump is a patsy put in by Clinton to lose the GOP--but it's backfiring) -- He's too dumb to be president, but she will not do any of the new things she's promised the Bernie camp.. My conscience says to vote Jill Stein, but if not her, then I'm voting Trump -- if I can't save the country by voting for someone who really gives a shit - then I'd rather destroy my old party the democrats and build a new party of progressives in it's stead -- the only way to change the left is to battle it out amongst ourselves first and kickout the establishment. I will not even vote down-ticket for establishment players like Pelosi or Harry Reid - if they backed CLinton before June they're definitely on my shit list.

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

#187

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:40 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…

You have unstated assumptions embedded in your post.

You are not taking a vote away from Obama when you vote for Stein. It is far more likely that Obama is actually taking votes away from Stein, as Green party supporters vote strategically, because their 2nd choice is better than their 3rd or 4th choice.

Until such time as any US state implements a ranked-choice voting system, you have no way of knowing whether the candidate receiving the vote is actually someone's first choice, or a strategic vote for the second-to-last choice.

First-past-the-post voting essentially means that the 2 major parties are always stealing away almost all the votes that would have otherwise been cast for lesser parties. So a vote for Stein is actually "refusing to let Democrats steal your Green vote". You can't steal it away from the Democrats, because it wasn't theirs to begin with.

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

#188

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC

waterphone wrote: post #83

xlxlxlx wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because in the U.S. electoral system, voting outside of the two primary candidates selected by the system is effectively a wasted vote, and if there is one candidate you especially don't want, it is usually more effective to vote against them rather than for a candidate who cannot win under the system in place.

A third-party vote is wasted in the context of the current election. It is definitely not wasted in terms of ballot access and public credibility for the subsequent elections.

If you don't expect to die before the next election, it is never a waste to vote for the option closest to what you actually want.

If you are always voting between your worst choice and your second-worst choice, it may be wiser to reconsider strategic voting altogether, and just pick what you want every time.

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

#189

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

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…

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

No, it can be a form of non-voting protest, which is very different from a vote, including a vote of no confidence where such is an actual, meaningful thing.

And its a fairly weak form of protest, given that its protesting by doing exactly what lots of political actors expend considerable effort to get people that disagree with them to do (if you can't be convinced to vote the way they want, not voting or voting for an irrelevant option is exactly what political campaigns try to get you to do.)

> But wouldn't it be wonderful if one of them "wins" the job by receiving support from only a small fraction of eligible voters?

It likely would be almost completely unnoticed.

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

Sure, it would be a few percent less than Clinton in 1992 (23%) or Bush in 2000 (24%). So what? Why do you expect that there is a magic threshold where suddenly it would be a "strong message" somewhere below the sub-25% of those elections and 15-17%?

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

#190

Post by astazangasta » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

delecti wrote: post #177

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…

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 sam…

I object to the whole term 'spoiler'. These people are not obliged to vote for you if they believe you to be the devil incarnate. For many the alternative to voting Democrat would be to not vote. Is this, also, unacceptable? Nay, any who doesn't vote to stop the dread spectre of Trump and advance the rule of Clinton is a traitor?

My feeling on Clinton is that she, and many of the other people in government, are horrifying murderers and traitors. Obama has two main roles: fundraise for the Democrats and sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. Clinton has been paid millions of dollars by Goldman Sachs, a company that had a major hand in constructing the housing bubble whose bursting blanked $24 trillion in wealth from America.

I am just giving you a bare illustration of my disagreements with Clinton. I held my nose and voted for Sanders in the primary. I probably won't even vote for Jill Stein. There is no way for someone like me to even begin to express my antipathy to the current form of American political process and system of government.

To many people like me, you are asking them to vote for Al Capone because John Wayne Gacy is worse.

Perhaps you think people like me don't matter. But the truth is there are probably a lot of people like me. And there are probably a lot of people of a similar bent on the right (though with different stories for why we should hate and fear the same elites). And this political system doesn't reflect our desires, and, as you're arguing in this thread, by design it cannot; it seems lunatic to me to attempt to engage with it.

So, I won't be voting Clinton, nor Trump. But I am not a spoiler; the barrel is fully rotten.