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

#191

Post by ende » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #124

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…

Voting for a third party is pointless. You might as well just stay home if you're going to do that. You might feel better about voting libertarian or writing in Snowden, but it doesn't actually do anything. You're voting as if the system worked differently than it does. It's about as useful and productive as removing all the free() calls from your C code because you think that C really should have garbage collection.

Utterly false. If the expectation is the actual election of a third party candiate, then sure that is unrealistic given how the two party system actively supresses third party participation. But voting third party contributes to long term objectives of increasing ballot access, funding, visibility, media attention, and decreasing the two-party share of the vote which thereby decreases the legitimacy of two-party outcomes. These in turn can then pressure other politicians across all branches of government to ensact more inclusive electoral reform.

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

#192

Post by lostinny » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

Diederich wrote: post #148

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…

Spot on analysis. I tend to go with a concrete example: Florida in 2000.

537 votes. That was the official difference between Bush and Gore in Florida, out of almost 6 million votes cast. Nearly 100,000 people voted for Nader.

These Nader supporters of course had every right to vote how they wanted, but the prevailing argument at the time by Nader was that there was essentially no difference between Gore and Bush and it was time to send a message to the "establishment."

However you feel about Bush, I think history makes it plain that 1) there was likely a huge difference between a Bush and a potential Gore presidency, and 2) while it may be nice to simply send a message with your vote, we should remember that 0.0000895% of the electorate of a single state can determine the outcome.

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

#193

Post by metaphorm » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

eximius wrote: post #185

metaphorm wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

that doesn't really make sense as a response to my comment. the OP article is a summary of how NEITHER candidate (the corrupt one or the bigot) can claim to represent the electorate. they are both appointees of un-representative minority factions.

your post, which I was replying to, was advocating for some kind of moderate politician as an alternative. I pointed out that Obama has already been that politician. I'm questioning your notion that what we need is a moderate.

In other words, your suggestion made no sense to me. Why did you suggest it?

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

#194

Post by ende » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

hashkb wrote: post #131

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…

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.

Sounds like votes don't mean anything one way or the other.

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

#195

Post by DefaultUserHN » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

eximius wrote: post #185

metaphorm wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Better than blatantly corrupt or blatantly racist?

Come on. That's just typical election year rhetorics. Try to focus on the policies of each candidate.

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

#196

Post by HelloMcFly » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

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…

I don't like extending the turn-of-phrase "lesser of two evils" to subsequently label each candidate evil. I realize you're just continue with the phrase, but I bristle a little bit at the implication that major-party voters are voting in an evil.

> If you are saying you have to choose between two bad candidates, you are implying you would choose a better option if one existed.

Well there's a word missing here that changes it. People are not typically implying they would choose a better option if one existed; rather, they are typically implying they would choose a different viable candidate if a different viable candidate existed.

> If you don't think the third party candidate is a better option, that's fine, don't vote third party, but if you think the major party options are evil, the just don't vote.

This is again a suggestion I take umbrage to, and one I feel primarily made by those unlikely to feel the level of personal impact from a given election. Both candidates are the same, unless your voting rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you're reproductive rights are threatened. Both candidates are the same, unless you depend on food stamps to feed your children and yourself.

Elections have real stakes. It's all well-and-good to take a philosophical stance with a third-party, but that third-party candidate isn't going to win. It's both a self-fulfilling prophecy to say so, and a pragmatic acknowledgement of present-day reality. So, when one of two people will win, and your vote does matter (which isn't a given), then the rational thing to do is vote for the person who you feel will do you the most good or least harm. And everyone that turns their nose up at you for not tilting against windmills can learn to take it easy.

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

#197

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 4:00 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #188

waterphone wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I think there is a pair of words reversed here: it is not definitely wasted in terms of ballot access and public credibility for subsequent elections (that is, it is possible for it to have some impact on those things), but its most likely also wasted for those purposes, so "definitely not" is not accurate.

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

#198

Post by DefaultUserHN » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 4:02 PM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #64

So what? if Americans focused more on congressional elections then things could change. There's only so much a president can do.

That's true. People act like the President has all the power. But that's now how our government work. Power is divided between all the three branches of the government. The President does not have all the power.

Those that fear Trump will become a dictator does not understand the checks and balances of our government.

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

#199

Post by syshum » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 4:02 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.

>sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.

Of course you dont, There are 2 Other people on the ballot in Most states given you 4 options.

I personally will be voting for Gary Johnson this year. (as i did in 2012)

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

#200

Post by Spoom » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 4:02 PM UTC

rbcgerard wrote: post #144

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…

This strategy makes sense in battleground states but what about in the opposite case (say hawaii (very D) or wyoming (very R)) - I'd argue that by voting for the third party candidate is the better option as you are unlikely to change the outcome of the election one way or the other - but you reduce the mandate of the winner that you are less aligned with, and by marginally improving the showing of the third party, m…

I would agree that it matters less in non-battleground states, and could have the effects mentioned. This, in general, causes one of the two parties to absorb some of the causes put forward by the third party, which is one of the reasons the system tends to centralize toward two parties.