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

201–210 of 267 posts

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

#201

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> You don't actually have to vote for the least worst one... I recommend looking to third party candidates.

For any individual voter, under most scenarios that end up existing at the time of casting a ballot on election day in the electoral system like that of the US, while any single vote is unlikely to have an effect on the outcome, the most likely nonzero effect of a third party vote vs. voting for the least disfavored major candidate is to elect the most disfavored major party candidate.

If you don't like the major candidate, its certainly makes sense to promote a third party candidate so that the calculus on election day is different than normal and it becomes rational for people to vote for a third party candidate (at which point, that "third-party" will have become, for the purpose of the election, one of the two major parties, displacing one of the previous ones for which it will no longer be rational to vote, for the same reason it normally is not for a third party), but it makes less sense to actually vote for a third-party candidate when that transformation of circumstances has not taken place before the election.

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

#202

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

Adult life is an unending series of choosing the "least worst option."

I'd like to do whatever I want with my time. But I have to pay for things, and I'm not independently wealthy, so I seek the least worst job I can get.

I'd like to live in a perfect house in a perfect neighborhood, but I haven't found that yet so I chose to buy the least worst house/neighborhood combo I could find and afford.

I'd like to have no commute, but I need to be in the office to work, so I have to find the least worst way to get too and from work.

I'd like to be in shape, but because I don't have time to play outside all day (my preferred form of exercise), I have to pursue concentrated exercise sessions. I try to find the least worst way to work out enough to maintain the least worst level of fitness.

Now, you might say that's a limiting and negative way to look at things like jobs, homes, exercise, etc. To which I would say it's also a silly way to look at elections.

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

#203

Post by ende »

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…

The problem has more to do with the mechanics of plurality voting than presidential vs parliamentary systems. Parliamentary systems can and are subject to the same winner take all mechanics. The scenario you outline would best be remedied via a ranked voting method such as IRV or approval voting. The one thing I would incorporate from some parliamentary systems into the US system is proportional representation. PR + IRV = more equitable representation of non-gamified votes.

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

#204

Post by Spoom »

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…

I'm not trying to argue that you should never vote third party. If you are so ideologically opposed to the Democratic and Republican platforms that you truly see no difference between them in terms of the success of their governance, then sure, vote for a third party.

I don't personally think that way, and I believe there would be a huge difference between a Clinton and a Trump presidency, so I will vote strategically because I want to have an impact on the real election happening here, that between the two front-runners.

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

#205

Post by mikeash »

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?

HN delays showing the reply link once conversations get to a certain depth, as a way to slow down the conversation and put a damper on flame wars.

Anyway, I don't see what difference federal funding would make. They're still not going to have a chance at winning or meaningfully affecting the policies of the major parties. In the unlikely event they do manage to win, it's basically mathematically guaranteed that they'll just displace one of the other major parties and we'll be back to a two-party system again. This is, of course, what happened in the mid 19th century when the Republican Party displaced the Whigs. There's no way around it in a first-past-the-post system. If you want third parties to be viable (and I sure do!) then you need electoral reform, not protest votes.

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

#206

Post by Mindless2112 »

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.

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

Perhaps you should vote for someone else then.

    “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
    "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
    "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more
  rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had
  the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing
  anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people
  are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the
  lizards and the lizards rule the people."
    "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a 
  democracy."
    "I did," said Ford. "It is."
    "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously
  obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
    "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've
  all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the
  government they've voted in more or less approximates to
  the government they want."
    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
    "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
    "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford,
  "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
  
  ― Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

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

#207

Post by ende »

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…

Exactly. The general third party and independent share of the vote is a metric that should be tracked more visibly.

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

#208

Post by mikeash »

bluejekyll wrote: post #87
matwood wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all of the candidates only two have a chance of winning. If I vote for someone other than those two, the one that I think is the worst may get elected.

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…

The perspective may well be self-fulfilling, but it's a perspective held by nearly all voters, so it will self-fulfill whether or not I personally believe it.

Yes, if the entire electorate would just wake up and realize they can vote for anyone they want, then it would no longer be a two-party system. And if a benevolent immortal dictator spontaneously materialized in the White House, we wouldn't need to mess about with this democracy nonsense at all anymore. The second one is not substantially less likely to happen than the first, so it's pointless to consider.

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

#209

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> This isn't the case in every electoral system; for example, in a Parliamentary system such as Canada's, you vote for your local MP, who runs on the basis of a riding, for which there are usually several within a city. The party that wins the most MP seats gets to form a government (PM, etc.) So the election becomes a much more local affair, rather than being a winner-take-all battle among the entire province, and results in practice in a multi-party system.

Parliamentary systems with FPTP also tend toward two-party systems locally, though there is somewhat more variation nationally sometimes. (The US also had some variation nationally, especially before the Missouri Farmer-Labor Party joined the national Democratic Party.)

IF you want multiparty elections locally as well as nationally -- if you want more than two meaningful choices when you go into the ballot box -- you need something better than FPTP as a voting system (IRV with single-seat constituencies is like the smallest and least meaningful step in a positive direction, but STV with multiseat constituencies does better.)

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

#210

Post by awesomerobot »

Someone1234 wrote: post #100
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.

Both solutions are less effective than mail in ballots, online voting, or extending the vote duration (e.g. 7 days). People just bring up a "voting holiday" because they want an extra holiday. The reality is that many people would use the holiday to relax, go out of town, or get stuff done and voting percentage wouldn't improve. Ditto with weekends. People go out of town on the weekends, do you think they're going to…

Good points. A 7-day duration would be hopefully flexible enough with everyone and would be the most easy to implement.
Post reply on HN