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

211–220 of 267 posts

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

#211

Post by eximius »

metaphorm wrote: post #193
eximius wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 qu…

Because thats the only way of appealing to "both" demographics enough to make it work. Right now voters are just siding with whoever they can stomach easiest.

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

#212

Post by eximius »

DefaultUserHN wrote: post #195
eximius wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What, you think that won't/hasn't informed their policies?

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

#213

Post by mark_l_watson »

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 very much agree with you. Voting for one of the republicrat candidates might have short term gains (e.g., possibility of having Trump as president, if you dislike him), neither party, nor our elected representatives, reflects many issues that people say they care about in nationals and local polls.

I see voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson as being a long term play.

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

#214

Post by lettergram »

mikeash wrote: post #205
kingnothing wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> They're still not going to have a chance at winning or meaningfully affecting the policies of the major parties.

A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.

[1] http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...

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

#215

Post by lettergram »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #157
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…

> 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 ra…

I said it elsewhere so I am going to repost it:

> But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election.

A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.

Basically, if a third party can get even 15% of the vote it would open the door for another candidate.

[1] http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/a...

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

#216

Post by dragonwriter »

lettergram wrote: post #215
HelloMcFly wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ra…

I said it elsewhere so I am going to repost it: > But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election. A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle. Basically, if a thi…

> A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1].

(1) a third party is unlikely, in failing to win, to get even a single electoral vote, much less be instrumental in denying the leading major-party candidate a majority.

(2) If no candidate gets an electoral majority for the Presidency, the House elects a President on a one-vote per state basis (and if they don't do it by a specified time, the Vice President becomes President); if no candidate gets an electoral majority for the Vice Presidency, the Senate elects a Vice President.

> This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle.

Why would it destroy both major parties -- particularly the one that still wins the Presidency in that scenario?

> Basically, if a third party can get even 15% of the vote it would open the door for another candidate.

No, it wouldn't. We know that, because its happened, not that many elections ago (H. Ross Perot, 18.9% in 1992.)

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

#217

Post by mikeash »

lettergram wrote: post #214
mikeash wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> They're still not going to have a chance at winning or meaningfully affecting the policies of the major parties. A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle. [1] http://www.archives.gov/feder…

The odds of that happening are still basically negligible. And if it did, you'd shake up or destroy the major parties, but then you'd be back to some sort of two-party system pretty much right away, whether with the incumbents or new ones.

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

#218

Post by kingnothing »

mikeash wrote: post #205
kingnothing wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Federal funding would help those candidates get national TV ads and in front of more people in general. Then, with the added legitimacy of a 3rd party with that kind of money to splash around, they would likely be included in more prime time debates and other forms of media coverage. The two incumbent parties would also start to pay attention to the newcomer. It isn't a 4 or 8 year fix, but I believe it would be a major step in the right direction for this country.

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

#219

Post by jkarneges »

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.

It's not very well known, but if a candidate gets at least 5% of the popular vote then their party gets access to government funding for the next election. 5% is still a pretty tall order (Libertarian party got around 1% in 2012), but it's in the realm of plausibility.

The fact that it's based on the popular vote is great because the Electoral College doesn't get in way. Interestingly, if you live in a state that isn't a swing state, voting third party is possibly more meaningful than voting R or D. For example, if you live in California, voting for Clinton is unnecessary and voting for Trump is pointless, but voting for Stein or Johnson could actually have a real effect.

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

#220

Post by Diederich »

lostinny wrote: post #192
Diederich wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

Right. I've engaged in a couple of such discussions on reddit. To say I'm unhappy with the two major candidates would be a huge understatement.

But no matter how strong our emotions are about such things, should be extremely clear-headed about what our vote means. And, the point I try to hammer home, that we each need to take full responsibility for the result of our vote.

If you want to vote to 'let the world burn', as quite a few Bernie supporters are talking, so be it.

If you want to vote to 'send a message', so be it.

If things go very badly after November, then you're not allowed to say "my vote didn't really matter" or "I had no choice but to vote the way I did."

Own your vote; make it, and accept responsibility for your portion of the outcome.

537 out of 100,000 Nader voters in 2000 changed the world, and not in a good way, in my strongly held opinion at least.

Post reply on HN