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.
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 ma…
So they get some attention, and then they either fade out or take over. Either way, we're back where we started. The problem isn't that third parties don't get enough attention, the problem is that the way the electoral system is designed, there can only be two significant parties. You might change the names of those two parties, but that won't really do much.
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 r…
Agreed, and I would love to move to a more proportional voting system. Ontario had a vote a while back to move to mixed-member proportional but the folks behind it failed to explain it well enough for people to understand, in my opinion, so it failed.
Johnson is not a very good libertarian, ironically.
He is still far more so than the other candidates.
The remaining candidates? Sure, but that's a pretty low bar. There were others vying for the libertarian nomination. I'd argue that Rand Paul is a better libertarian than Johnson, even.
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 c…
Your argument basically revolves around two points. One is that if you feel one candidate represents your views, then you need to vote for that candidate. That's absolutely, 100% fine and what you should do! I am speaking to the people who don't find their views fit with either candidate, or the negatives outweigh the positives so much, that they feel they are not given a real choice, which is not really true. The second point you are trying to make is saying that you should only vote for a viable candidate, which is like saying you should only cheer for a sports team that has a viable chance of winning a championship. That's ridiculous, and just passive aggressive bullying to get people to feel they need to vote for a candidate you support. People should be free to vote with their hearts for whomever they feel best represents their interests. If the candidate they vote for loses, fine, that's the democratic process, and has a 50% chance of happening anyways if you vote for a 'viable' candidate. If someone feels they have to vote for the candidate who is going to win, that's something more akin to countries like Venezuela or Iran, where there are elections, but we all know how much choice people are actually given in those places.
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 horri…
I am the one that originally asked the question, and my views are very much in line with yours. I left the US three years ago, largely out of utter contempt for the American political establishment, and what I consider to be genocidal foreign policy compelled by war profiteering.
I am normally quite chatty about this and other political topics online, but tonight I'm out of energy -- so thank you for summing up how I feel so well!
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.
We really ought to shift to a rank based voting system where you can list your first choice, second choice, third etc. (Which Jill Stein wants to implement btw.) This system would reflect the average of preferences and the best candidates would emerge.
There's no way Trump would have secured the Republican nomination in a rank based voting system because he is so polarizing. Instead they'd probably have Kasich, who was everyone's second best.
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.
I'm opposed to Trump, possibly to an unreasonable degree, but I agree he's not going to turn into a dictator. He can still screw things up royally, and destroy what little civility in the political discourse there is in this country by pandering to the alt-right, conspiracy theorist, nihilist fringe and legitimizing them, but a President Trump would probably face more scrutiny and intransigence than even Obama has. Both parties would be trying their hardest to discredit him for a second term, and discredit his attempts at a legacy.
Of course people said the same thing about Obama... I'm still waiting for that inevitable socialist coup he's supposed to pull off. Unfortunately, both the Democrats and Republicans have made an art out of convincing people that the Presidency is the only part of the government they should be engaged with.
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.
I'm opposed to Trump, possibly to an unreasonable degree, but I agree he's not going to turn into a dictator. He can still screw things up royally, and destroy what little civility in the political discourse there is in this country by pandering to the alt-right, conspiracy theorist, nihilist fringe and legitimizing them, but a President Trump would probably face more scrutiny and intransigence than even Obama has. B…
Agreed. Even if Trump wins, both parties and Congress, as well as Obama's appointed Supreme Court judge will try their hardest to prevent Trump from doing anything unconstitutional.
>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?
They both just want what's best for their country.