Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-27-2020, 02:18 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,564

Medium article: neither the D's nor R's are entitled to third-party votes


This Medium article helped express something I've been trying to articulate for a while:

There is this persistent attitude by D's and R's alike that everyone ought to vote D or R as the default, that they are somehow entitled to third-party votes, and that people who vote third party have somehow denied the D's/R's a vote that "rightfully" should have gone to them (this attitude is usually particularly prevalent among the side that just lost an election - for instance, the YouTube video in November 2016 where a Hillary supporter ranted, "Fuck you, third party voters! This was not the time to pull this sort of shit!")

Per the article, neither the Democratic nor Republican Party has any sort of entitled right to a vote that goes to a third-party candidate. You can argue that third-party voters should have voted (D) or (R,) due to the practical benefits of tactical voting, but too often the criticism of them goes beyond merely that, and it becomes instead that voting for D or R ought to be the default vote and that somehow third-party voters have wronged the nation, and have to supply some sort of explanation to justify straying from the default.
  #2  
Old 01-27-2020, 02:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Voting for the only chance to defeat bigotry, hatred, and misogyny should be the default, and it's perfectly reasonable to criticize voters who choose not to do this, either to vote third party or not to vote at all (or, obviously, those who vote for the bigotry/hatred/misogyny). And some of this criticism, when paired with all kinds of other rhetorical strategies (i.e. gentle discussion, robust argument, and even satire and mockery) can be effective in swaying these voters.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-27-2020 at 02:41 PM.
  #3  
Old 01-27-2020, 02:46 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Are third party voters from 2016 content that they have put their principles above the mundane concern of kids in cages? Do third party voters from 2000 sleep easier at night knowing that they didn't have to compromise at all, for all that happened was a disastrous war based on lies that has cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lifves?

Nothing in that article convinces me that I can't criticize them for making the wrong choice in either year.

This isn't about what a particular American owes to a political party. It's about what Americans owe to the country, to either make good choices on leaders or to just avoid making really, really bad choices on them.
  #4  
Old 01-27-2020, 02:47 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Where I'm a little confused is in the thought process for someone who deliberately votes third-party in a two-party first-past-the-post system. At worst, it's a wasted vote, and at best, it's a sort of signal to the dominant parties about what you believe in. But even as a signal it's pretty weak, in that the third party voters are typically so few that it doesn't cause any change in either party.

So there's a perception on the part of the public at large that third party voters are "wasting" their votes, and that those votes could have been cast in a much more productive way, almost always by the losing party.

I agree that voters don't OWE the big two parties their votes, but I can also see where the outrage comes from as well.

Last edited by bump; 01-27-2020 at 02:48 PM.
  #5  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:01 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Voting for the only chance to defeat bigotry, hatred, and misogyny should be the default, and it's perfectly reasonable to criticize voters who choose not to do this
But again - you are only seeing this from your perspective. Trump voters also criticize third-party voters the exact same way, but just with a few keywords substituted in - maybe swap in "killing fetuses/babies" for "bigotry", etc.

The rhetoric that you provide here is a perfect example of exactly the kind of attitude the Medium article was referring to.

Last edited by Velocity; 01-27-2020 at 03:01 PM.
  #6  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:04 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Are third party voters from 2016 content that they have put their principles above the mundane concern of kids in cages?
A significant number of Gary Johnson voters were conservative Republican votes. If it weren't for Johnson's' candidacy, Trump might have gotten even more votes than he did.
  #7  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But again - you are only seeing this from your perspective. Trump voters also criticize third-party voters the exact same way, but just with a few keywords substituted in - maybe swap in "killing fetuses/babies" for "bigotry", etc.
Of course they do, just like George Wallace's supporters criticized those who supported others as unAmerican and communists (among other things). They were wrong, as are Trump's supporters.

Quote:
The rhetoric that you provide here is a perfect example of exactly the kind of attitude the Medium article was referring to.
Sometimes one side is right and the other side is wrong.

What's your point?
  #8  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:09 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,224
"Entitlement" has about as much to do with voting strategy as "deep fat frying" or "bordered in tatted lace." It's a fundamentally flawed way to look at the situation.

When you're trying to figure out which way to push the trolley, do you talk about the trolley being entitled to your push? When you're trying to figure out whether to buy a sandwich or a bottle of rat poison for the starving kid, do you ask whether the restaurant is entitled to your money? Hell no.

Virtually all candidates, Sanders and Warren included, are basically megalomaniacs who have no business near the seats of power, IMO. I have no interest in giving them trophies or snuggles or high fives or votes. It ain't about rewarding them or punishing them. Their self-esteem is immaterial to my decision.

Instead, I get to make a decision, and my decision on how to vote may push society in one direction or another. If I vote for someone who has a chance of winning and who will be less bad than someone else who has a chance of winning, I push society in a slightly less bad direction.

If I vote third party, or if I vote Vermin Supreme, or if I vote for myself, or if I stay home and don't vote, in all cases I've done the same thing: I've neglected to give society a nudge in the right direction.

Seriously, the idea of "entitlement" can go jump in a lake.
  #9  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:10 PM
kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,362
So I should vote for a candidate I do not believe in because the other one is worse? And there is another (THIRD) candidate I do believe in, but I'm not supposed to vote for them? Because "one side is right and the other side is wrong"? Hey, what if both sides are wrong?
  #10  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
So I should vote for a candidate I do not believe in because the other one is worse? And there is another (THIRD) candidate I do believe in, but I'm not supposed to vote for them? Because "one side is right and the other side is wrong"? Hey, what if both sides are wrong?
I'm not talking every situation, just Trump vs X (X being any of a number of Democrats). I didn't say the same thing about Romney and McCain, but it really is different with Trump.
  #11  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:24 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A significant number of Gary Johnson voters were conservative Republican votes. If it weren't for Johnson's' candidacy, Trump might have gotten even more votes than he did.
You think Gary Johnson voters would be cheering concentration camps?

Quote:
But again - you are only seeing this from your perspective.
This is where the article by this sci-fi writer really falls apart. He digresses into how various presidential candidates were criticized by the other side. Well, whoop-dee-doo. I have my perspective that racist policies are wrong, and just because others see it differently, doesn't actually contradict the fact that I am right and they are wrong.
  #12  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:26 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
So I should vote for a candidate I do not believe in because the other one is worse? And there is another (THIRD) candidate I do believe in, but I'm not supposed to vote for them? Because "one side is right and the other side is wrong"? Hey, what if both sides are wrong?
Sure, roll the dice and see how the country turns out. Just remember that there are 320 million Americans whose lives are riding on some voters' inability to choose a lesser evil.
  #13  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:42 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
So I should vote for a candidate I do not believe in because the other one is worse? And there is another (THIRD) candidate I do believe in, but I'm not supposed to vote for them? Because "one side is right and the other side is wrong"? Hey, what if both sides are wrong?
"Supposed to" is also a silly way of looking at it.

An ethical person considers the likely outcomes of their decisions and then makes decisions accordingly.

If you really like Vermin Supreme (and I confess that he's my favorite third party candidate), that's spiffy. If you vote for him, how will the world be appreciably different than if you'd not voted at all, or if you'd voted for Jill Stein or David Duke or for yourself or stayed home?

Of course "both sides" are terrible. That's the world we live in. You're either gonna eat some moldy baloney, or you're gonna eat an ebola-scab-and-arsenic sandwich. You don't get to refuse to eat; one of those meals is on the menu.

You appear to be making the mistake of thinking of your vote as a reward for one side. It ain't. It's a way to stanch the bleeding, no more.
  #14  
Old 01-27-2020, 03:48 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
"Supposed to" is also a silly way of looking at it.

An ethical person considers the likely outcomes of their decisions and then makes decisions accordingly.

If you really like Vermin Supreme (and I confess that he's my favorite third party candidate), that's spiffy. If you vote for him, how will the world be appreciably different than if you'd not voted at all, or if you'd voted for Jill Stein or David Duke or for yourself or stayed home?

Of course "both sides" are terrible. That's the world we live in. You're either gonna eat some moldy baloney, or you're gonna eat an ebola-scab-and-arsenic sandwich. You don't get to refuse to eat; one of those meals is on the menu.

You appear to be making the mistake of thinking of your vote as a reward for one side. It ain't. It's a way to stanch the bleeding, no more.

To a Libertarian voter (and I'm not Libertarian, but I'll use them as an example since they're the biggest third party) - voting Libertarian is their way of "getting an outcome." By pushing their party up in the vote count as prominently as possible (there's a big meaningful difference between, say, getting only 2% and getting 6% in the nationwide vote, even if none lead to a Libertarian getting elected outright). The higher the Libertarian vote outcome, the more the nation and its politicians have to take Libertarians seriously as a political faction.

Finally, people can vote according to what feels best to their political innards, regardless of policy outcome. Just like how a baseball fan who lives in New York or New England is by no means obligated to support the Yankees or Red Sox, even though those are by far the two most predominant teams in the region. He can support the Padres, Rangers, Twins or whichever team feels best to him.

Last edited by Velocity; 01-27-2020 at 03:50 PM.
  #15  
Old 01-27-2020, 04:02 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
To a Libertarian voter (and I'm not Libertarian, but I'll use them as an example since they're the biggest third party) - voting Libertarian is their way of "getting an outcome." By pushing their party up in the vote count as prominently as possible (there's a big meaningful difference between, say, getting only 2% and getting 6% in the nationwide vote, even if none lead to a Libertarian getting elected outright). The higher the Libertarian vote outcome, the more the nation and its politicians have to take Libertarians seriously as a political faction.
That's the strategy I used in 1996 and 2000, when I voted Green. You wanna ask me how that worked out for me?

It's a very commonly-mentioned reason for voting third party. It doesn't work. Libertarians have been using this strategy for decades. How many elected libertarians are in the federal government, again?

Here's my 10-20-30 plan for third parties (and remember, I am not exactly a cheerleader for the parties we have now):

Run candidates only at the local level, until you have at least 10% of the seats in a local government.

Once you have at least 10% of the seats locally, start running for legislative seats on a state level. Keep doing that until you have 20% of the legislative seats.

Start running for state executive seats, and federal legislative seats, until you have 30% of the state government.

Once you control 30% of a state government, you're a goddamn force to be reckoned with. If you run a presidential candidate at the point, people will take you seriously.

But third parties over and over and over and over decide that they're gonna skip building a local base, and they're gonna go straight to running for the big sexy visible offices. AT BEST, all you can do this way is to help the party that you think is worse of the two major parties.

Granted, I'm a big fan of Libertarians doing this, because they tend to convince disaffected Republicans to vote Libertarian instead of sticking with the Republican party. I'd much rather folks vote Libertarian than Green, because I think it makes the world better.

But it doesn't help them get the world they want.
  #16  
Old 01-27-2020, 04:09 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,812
A voter who thinks the Ds and Rs are about equally bad should vote for a 3rd-party. That's the way to get value for his vote: even knowing the 3rd-party candidate has no chance, running up his vote total sends a message to the Ds and Rs that they're leaving voters dissatisfied.

But that's speaking abstractly. Let's focus on the real world. Where OP fails is in imagining that Ds and Rs today could possibly be perceived as equally bad by an intelligent informed voter.

A voter who would otherwise vote for an R should be applauded for voting 3rd-party. A voter who would otherwise vote for a D should be ashamed.
  #17  
Old 01-27-2020, 04:27 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
To a Libertarian voter (and I'm not Libertarian, but I'll use them as an example since they're the biggest third party) - voting Libertarian is their way of "getting an outcome." By pushing their party up in the vote count as prominently as possible (there's a big meaningful difference between, say, getting only 2% and getting 6% in the nationwide vote, even if none lead to a Libertarian getting elected outright). The higher the Libertarian vote outcome, the more the nation and its politicians have to take Libertarians seriously as a political faction.
Gary Johnson got something like 4% of the votes and the country ended up with the least libertarian President in generations.
  #18  
Old 01-27-2020, 04:47 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Are third party voters from 2016 content that they have put their principles above the mundane concern of kids in cages? Do third party voters from 2000 sleep easier at night knowing that they didn't have to compromise at all, for all that happened was a disastrous war based on lies that has cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lifves?
I voted third party in 2000 (Nader) and and 2016 (Johnson). I don't regret it. If I could travel back in time and cast a new vote, I would make the same choices.

Firstly, I have only one vote to cast, which never is and never will be sufficient to sway a presidential election. Nothing that I could ever have done would have changed who was in power in any way.

Secondly, the subsequent votes cast by Democrats and Republicans show clearly that there is little difference between them. You mention the Iraq War. How did prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden vote on the Iraq War resolution? How many countries did Obama send troops to while he was President? There is simply no reason to view the Democrats as an anti-war party when they actually are a pro-war party whenever they're in power. And the whole "kids in cages" thing? Shall we discuss the Democrats' history on that issue too?
  #19  
Old 01-27-2020, 05:17 PM
Hari Seldon is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,552
All this is why I strongly favor ranked choice voting. Of course, nothing would help for a voter why believed that withholding a vote from Clinton is more important than beating Trump. I would vote for a stinking pile of dung over Trump.
  #20  
Old 01-27-2020, 07:43 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Yeah, I actually think full preferential voting (Aussie style IRV where you *must* rank all of the candidates from 1st to last preference) is great because it forces you to actually endorse someone other than your special little snowflake chosen principles. If you can't do that, your vote doesn't count. I think forcing people to rank them 1 to n, actually to a small degree helps build a more sane and moderate political system because people actually are forced to make a decision about which alternative to their preference is actually better or worse.

In any case, neither the D's nor R's are entitled to third-party votes: but third party voters are neither entitled to or deserving of the respect of rational voters. You can vote for whomever you wish or refrain from voting at all, but you're not entitled to applause or respect, or shielded from opprobrium. No one is really saying the two major parties are entitled to your choice, they're saying you (and I mean this non-specifically) are basically stupid for having voted third party. This strawman that third party absolutists like the sci-fi writer who wrote this article prop up is hiding that it's not his "right" to vote third party that is under fire, it's his right to do so and not be made fun of for the fool that he is.
  #21  
Old 01-27-2020, 08:42 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 184
Generally, third parties that act as spoilers can have an effect in the long-term. As an example, a lot of Republicans were up in arms at George H.W. Bush after his broken "read my lips; no new taxes" promise as well as his support for NAFTA and voted for Perot. This essentially handed the election to Clinton, who raised taxes to higher than Bush had raised them and signed NAFTA. In the short-term Perot voters completely sabotaged their own goals and (since presumably most were aligned with Bush on other issues) hurt the GOP position on most everything else. However, since that election, no Republican on the national level has dared to even suggest raising taxes. The NAFTA thing is more complex and the GOP continued to be pro-free trade until Trump, but IMO Perot laid the seeds for Trump's protectionism at least.

I do agree that this election is a terrible time for left wing voters to try to send a message to Democrats though, the stakes with Trump are just too high.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 01-27-2020 at 08:42 PM.
  #22  
Old 01-27-2020, 08:43 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
I voted third party in 2000 (Nader) and and 2016 (Johnson). I don't regret it. If I could travel back in time and cast a new vote, I would make the same choices.
Fair enough. Bush and Trump voters liked those elections, so it isnít like you are alone.
  #23  
Old 01-27-2020, 08:52 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Finally, people can vote according to what feels best to their political innards, regardless of policy outcome. Just like how a baseball fan who lives in New York or New England is by no means obligated to support the Yankees or Red Sox, even though those are by far the two most predominant teams in the region. He can support the Padres, Rangers, Twins or whichever team feels best to him.
You really think that comparing support for baseball teams is a good analogy to deciding who gets to have his finger on the Button?
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #24  
Old 01-28-2020, 12:12 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
... You mention the Iraq War. How did prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden vote on the Iraq War resolution? How many countries did Obama send troops to while he was President? There is simply no reason to view the Democrats as an anti-war party when they actually are a pro-war party whenever they're in power....
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. WRONG!

I'm tired of hand-holding. Start a Pit thread if you need me to give you a cite.
  #25  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:09 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Voting for the only chance to defeat bigotry, hatred, and misogyny should be the default, and it's perfectly reasonable to criticize voters who choose not to do this, either to vote third party or not to vote at all (or, obviously, those who vote for the bigotry/hatred/misogyny). And some of this criticism, when paired with all kinds of other rhetorical strategies (i.e. gentle discussion, robust argument, and even satire and mockery) can be effective in swaying these voters.
No, it isn't. And no, it isn't.
  #26  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No, it isn't. And no, it isn't.
Wrong, and wrong!

__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #27  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:44 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8cashhomie View Post
I do agree that this election is a terrible time for left wing voters to try to send a message to Democrats though, the stakes with Trump are just too high.
That's really the issue at hand here; it's a matter of priority- is it more important to send your message to the Democratic party that you REALLY are concerned about climate change and the environment by voting Green, or is it more important that you put one more vote in the tally against Trump and the GOP, knowing that the race will be close?

Ranked choice voting would allow for both, but we currently don't do that. So the real question is whether your message sending is more or less important than opposing the GOP.

I mean, if it was a more normal situation, in terms of having relatively sane Republican candidates who haven't gone off the deep end, versus centrist Democrats, then sending a message is probably admirable- you're getting a variation on the same theme, either way you vote with the major parties in that case.

But this isn't one of those cases- your option is the dumpster fire that is the Trump administration, versus something more sane. Sending a message by voting third party is a tacit vote for the GOP this time around. That's what third party voters are missing in this particular election.
  #28  
Old 01-28-2020, 01:00 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,989
The only instance of a third party candidate who did not "take" votes from the other two parties was Perot in 1992. Turnout was so high that year, as compared to a typical election, that it is easily argued that Perot brought voters to the polls.

(This is borne out by analysis of down-ballot drop-off because you had a lot of people who came to vote for Perot and did so, essentially walking away from the rest of the ballot.)
  #29  
Old 01-28-2020, 01:22 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,278
It's not that the Democrats and the Republicans are entitled to all the votes. It's that the Democrats and Republicans are the only parties that matter in American politics. Suck it up, third party supporters, it's true.

So the only way your vote matters is if you vote for a Democrat or a Republican. If you vote for some third party, you're just talking about politics without doing anything.

If you have a political issue that you think is important, you need to make a decision. Do you want to just complain about it or do you want to do something about it? If you want to do something about it, you need to join one of the two real political parties. They're the ones who are going to get elected and actually change things.

If you think you're "sending a message" by voting for a third party, you are. But the message you're sending is "You can ignore me and the issues I care about."
  #30  
Old 01-28-2020, 10:10 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
The only instance of a third party candidate who did not "take" votes from the other two parties was Perot in 1992. Turnout was so high that year, as compared to a typical election, that it is easily argued that Perot brought voters to the polls.

(This is borne out by analysis of down-ballot drop-off because you had a lot of people who came to vote for Perot and did so, essentially walking away from the rest of the ballot.)
I didn't realize this but looked a bit into it and realize that I was completely wrong about Perot.
  #31  
Old 01-28-2020, 10:52 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Yeah, I actually think full preferential voting (Aussie style IRV where you *must* rank all of the candidates from 1st to last preference) is great because it forces you to actually endorse someone other than your special little snowflake chosen principles.
Ain't going to argue with the principle, but on the technicality not all Australian jurisdictions use full preferential voting (federal is) but others allow partial or exhausting preferential voting.
None the less you can vote #1 for the Snowflake Party as your Utopian candidate and #2 for LIB/LAB/DEM/GOP as the least undesirable mob you can live with. Possibly push the major down to 3,4 or 5 is you feel like being cantankerous, but who you preference after your first major party is largely academic.
Quote:
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need
  #32  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:12 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,015
One way to re-game the system, in the case of really appalling candidates, would be a "sweetheart deal" with a friend or relative of the other camp. Find a never-Trumper who still wants to vote R because they all the same can't bear to vote for a Democrat, and both pledge to vote third-party-of-your-choice.

Of course, you'd have to really trust each other to do the right thing in the polling booth.
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #33  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Voting for the only chance to defeat bigotry, hatred, and misogyny should be the default, and it's perfectly reasonable to criticize voters who choose not to do this, either to vote third party or not to vote at all (or, obviously, those who vote for the bigotry/hatred/misogyny). And some of this criticism, when paired with all kinds of other rhetorical strategies (i.e. gentle discussion, robust argument, and even satire and mockery) can be effective in swaying these voters.
Right. Us Dems are not "entitled" to third party votes. But if they dont like the current regime, then we will cheerfully let them come in from the cold and vote to get rid of trump. Please.

But dont say you hate and wanna get rid of trump and then say you will vote 3rd party of the dems dont nominate your boy.
  #34  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
So I should vote for a candidate I do not believe in because the other one is worse? And there is another (THIRD) candidate I do believe in, but I'm not supposed to vote for them? Because "one side is right and the other side is wrong"? Hey, what if both sides are wrong?
Yes. Because trump is really really bad and getting worse.


Your basic rights are in danger. In four more years of trump he will put in two more SCOTUS Judges and then there's no stopping him. What rights do you like? Clean air? Gone. Clean Water? Gone. Freedom of the press? Gone. ACA? Gone. Equal rights for women? Gone. For Minorities? Gone.
  #35  
Old 01-29-2020, 03:30 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes. Because trump is really really bad [I]and getting worse.
Interesting how this dire emergency places an obligation onto voters who aren't 'mainstream' Democrats but not the Democratic Party or those 'mainstream' democrats. Why is the burden of fighting entirely on other people abandoning their principles, but not the Democratic Party putting forward a good candidate who isn't simply awful? Surely if things are so dire, the Democrats and the Democratic mainstream should be willing to hold their noses and put forward a candidate who isn't into bombing brown people (Biden and Clinton both voted for the Iraq war, and both think that carpet bombing civilians in countries we're not at war with are OK), and isn't so deep into the pockets of big corporations?

Also, this would be more believable if both major parties didn't make the exact same argument at every election going back at least to 2000. "Third party might have been OK then, but NOW things are so bad that you have to vote for whoever we put up" loses its' sting when you've been hearing it for two decades.
  #36  
Old 01-29-2020, 03:46 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Gary Johnson got something like 4% of the votes and the country ended up with the least libertarian President in generations.
How are you determining that? Trump has been brutal at reducing the power of the federal government, especially in the area of minority rights, labor rights, banking regulation, education, and environmental protections. And Trump has attempted to cut back the ACA, though it's proven difficult since people seem to actually like the protections it affords. I mean, the LP platform outright calls for removing environmental protections, financial regulations, labor protections, anti-discrimination protections, any kind of public healthcare, and public education funding. Even Trump's ham-handed weakening of NATO fits with wanting no foreign entanglements.

From the 2016 LP Platform:
Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Where damages can
be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types

Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated government-mandated benefits or social engineering.

Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever
standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism,boycotts and other free-market solutions.

We favor a free-market health care system.

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice.
  #37  
Old 01-29-2020, 04:45 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Interesting how this dire emergency places an obligation onto voters who aren't 'mainstream' Democrats but not the Democratic Party or those 'mainstream' democrats. Why is the burden of fighting entirely on other people abandoning their principles, but not the Democratic Party putting forward a good candidate who isn't simply awful?
Suck it up. You're the minority faction. Why should the majority faction give in to the minority?

If it turns out I'm wrong and the voters decide they'd rather have Sanders, then Sanders will be the mainstream Democratic candidate. And then I'll be telling Biden supporters to suck it up and vote for Sanders.
  #38  
Old 01-29-2020, 04:57 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,278
Here's how politics works in the real world.

You have a list of a hundred things you want. And Candidate Allen supports all one hundred items on your list. He is your dream candidate.

Then there's Candidate Brown. He's in the same party as Allen. And Brown only supports two items on your list.

Finally, there's Carter. He's the candidate of the other party. He supports zero items on your list.

Brown beats Allen for the nomination. You think Allen is great but a majority of people preferred Brown. So the general election will be between Brown and Carter.

So here's your choices:

1. Stay true to your dreams. Write in Allen's name on Election Day. Carter wins the election and you get zero things you wanted.
2. Vote for some third party candidate who I won't even bother making up a name for. Carter wins the election and you get zero things you wanted.
3. Stay home of Election Day to register your disapproval. Carter wins the election and you get zero things you wanted.
4. Vote for Brown. Get two things you wanted.

Grown-ups pick number four. They don't believe that magic works and that they can make things happen by wishing really hard. Grown-ups make the best they can out of the circumstances that exist. They understand that getting a little is better than nothing.
  #39  
Old 01-29-2020, 07:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Interesting how this dire emergency places an obligation onto voters who aren't 'mainstream' Democrats but not the Democratic Party or those 'mainstream' democrats. Why is the burden of fighting entirely on other people abandoning their principles, but not the Democratic Party putting forward a good candidate who isn't simply awful? Surely if things are so dire, the Democrats and the Democratic mainstream should be willing to hold their noses and put forward a candidate who isn't into bombing brown people (Biden and Clinton both voted for the Iraq war, and both think that carpet bombing civilians in countries we're not at war with are OK), and isn't so deep into the pockets of big corporations? ....
You know, I am really tired of the meme that Biden was in favor of the Iraq war. First of all, just about everyone but sanders voted for it. Next of all, Biden got a personal promise from Shrub that he would not invade- but of course Bush lied. Afterwards, Biden admit he was fooled and he was wrong in voting for it.

And unless you are filthy rich, you have to take $ from the big corps or you simply wont win. Period. It is just fucking stupid for the Dems to hobble themselves in such a critical race by not taking pretty much every dine that doesnt come from the KKK.

Next- "the dems" dont choose their candidate by going over a list and picking the one that has the most appeal to everyone. The voters choose.


So if you prefer sanders, for example, fine. Work and vote for sanders. But if he loses, vote for any dem- or all your freedoms (excpet to own guns, oddly) will be flushed down the toilet. Yes, maybe it is the "lesser of two evils" but one evil is the guy who just wont recycle and the other evil is ted bundy.
  #40  
Old 01-29-2020, 07:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Here's how politics works in the real world.

You have a list of a hundred things you want. And Candidate Allen supports all one hundred items on your list. He is your dream candidate.

Then there's Candidate Brown. He's in the same party as Allen. And Brown only supports two items on your list.

Finally, there's Carter. He's the candidate of the other party. He supports zero items on your list.

Brown beats Allen for the nomination. You think Allen is great but a majority of people preferred Brown. So the general election will be between Brown and Carter.

So here's your choices:

1. Stay true to your dreams. Write in Allen's name on Election Day. Carter wins the election and you get zero things you wanted.
2. Vote for some third party candidate who I won't even bother making up a name for. Carter wins the election and you get zero things you wanted.
3. Stay home of Election Day to register your disapproval. Carter wins the election and you get zero things you wanted.
4. Vote for Brown. Get two things you wanted.

Grown-ups pick number four. They don't believe that magic works and that they can make things happen by wishing really hard. Grown-ups make the best they can out of the circumstances that exist. They understand that getting a little is better than nothing.
Nice simile.
  #41  
Old 01-29-2020, 08:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Yes, grown ups don't believe in magic, thank God.

Look, what some of you partisan guys don't understand is that some people don't think the Dems are better in any appreciable way. It's nice to blather philosophical about voting for the guy who'll give you some of what you want, don't be a baby. But some people think the parties just peddle different bullshit, not different action. In many areas, they're not wrong.

Some people want to vote against the system. They don't believe you that the Dems are the "good part of the system". There's always going to be some people like that. So quit crying like toddlers that people don't understand how obviously right you are.

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-29-2020 at 08:02 PM.
  #42  
Old 01-29-2020, 08:29 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, grown ups don't believe in magic, thank God.

Look, what some of you partisan guys don't understand is that some people don't think the Dems are better in any appreciable way.
I absolutely understand that. I think it's bullshit and argue against that bullshit. Those people who think that are wrong and can't back up their position.
Quote:
In many areas, they're not wrong.
They have to be right in *all* areas to be right. It's an enormous, sweeping claim.
Quote:
Some people want to vote against the system. They don't believe you that the Dems are the "good part of the system". There's always going to be some people like that. So quit crying like toddlers that people don't understand how obviously right you are.
I'm not saying Democrats are the good part of the system.

Your "quit crying like toddlers" is just stupid. Can you do better?
  #43  
Old 01-30-2020, 12:52 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Look, what some of you partisan guys don't understand is that some people don't think the Dems are better in any appreciable way. It's nice to blather philosophical about voting for the guy who'll give you some of what you want, don't be a baby. But some people think the parties just peddle different bullshit, not different action. In many areas, they're not wrong.
No, if they think there is no discernible difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, they are wrong. They are the political equivalent of anti-vaxxers or flat earthers.
  #44  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:34 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, grown ups don't believe in magic, thank God.

Look, what some of you partisan guys don't understand is that some people don't think the Dems are better in any appreciable way. It's nice to blather philosophical about voting for the guy who'll give you some of what you want, don't be a baby. But some people think the parties just peddle different bullshit, not different action. In many areas, they're not wrong.

Some people want to vote against the system. They don't believe you that the Dems are the "good part of the system". There's always going to be some people like that. So quit crying like toddlers that people don't understand how obviously right you are.
You know the Dems arent a whole lot better than the old GOP party. A little sure, but not massively.

So when you have the choice of say a Bush senior vs a Carter, well, that is a interesting choice. Maybe they are both the wrong choice. It's "eh" vs "meh" sometimes.

But you see, that's not the choice in 2020. It's trump and all your freedoms that are on the line. trump is evil. period. full stop.

He must be stopped.
  #45  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:59 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
4. Vote for Brown. Get two things you wanted.

Grown-ups pick number four. They don't believe that magic works and that they can make things happen by wishing really hard. Grown-ups make the best they can out of the circumstances that exist. They understand that getting a little is better than nothing.
And, top it all off, it's gonna be more like 80% of things, not 2%. The thing about people running in the same political party is that they mostly tend to agree. The party has an official position.

With the Democratic candidates, almost everything that makes anyone different is just a matter of degrees. It's more that they may not push as hard for the thing you want.

The only exception I've ever seen was with Trump. But that was specifically his promise--that he was different from the usual Republican. He ran on how awful he was as a person, and people voted for that.

When I see people say that there is one Democrat they'd vote for but none of the rest, it just demonstrates they don't think rationally, and that Trump and the Republicans succeeded. They may not be able to get you to vote for them, but they can sow this "all or none" ideology.
  #46  
Old 01-30-2020, 02:13 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, grown ups don't believe in magic, thank God.

Look, what some of you partisan guys don't understand is that some people don't think the Dems are better in any appreciable way. It's nice to blather philosophical about voting for the guy who'll give you some of what you want, don't be a baby. But some people think the parties just peddle different bullshit, not different action. In many areas, they're not wrong.

Some people want to vote against the system. They don't believe you that the Dems are the "good part of the system". There's always going to be some people like that. So quit crying like toddlers that people don't understand how obviously right you are.
You're the one being philosophical. We're being practical. Your guy can't win, so your vote, no matter how much you want it to, cannot and will not accomplish anything. Your "voting against the system" won't stop the system.

It is true that we reject the idea that the Republicans and Democrats are the same. But that, again, is about us being practical. Trump got a Republican on the Supreme Court and may have lost us the right to abortion. Trump has been targeting Muslims, immigrants (including children put in cages) and trans people. Trump started several trade wars, ruined peace in Iran, attacked our allies, cozied up with our enemies, cut off the press, and so much more.

There just are too many differences to argue that the Democrats are the same. Believing they are the same is EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP WANTS. He can't get you to vote for him, but he can get you to think the Dems are just as bad, when they aren't.

And, well, if third party voters who leaned left had all voted Clinton in 2016, Trump would have lost. Your impracticality and idealism caused really damage in the world.

We're not crying like babies. We actually have a reason to want to stop third party voters from screwing us over again.

Last edited by BigT; 01-30-2020 at 02:15 AM.
  #47  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:01 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You know, I am really tired of the meme that Biden was in favor of the Iraq war. First of all, just about everyone but sanders voted for it. Next of all, Biden got a personal promise from Shrub that he would not invade- but of course Bush lied. Afterwards, Biden admit he was fooled and he was wrong in voting for it.
Quote:
"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force and I would vote that way again today. It was the right vote then and would be a correct vote today," Biden said in a July 2003 speech at the Brookings Institution.
Quote:
"I think that eventually we go to Iraq, but my view, Larry, is the question is how we go to Iraq," Biden said. "Do we go to Iraq unilaterally without having built a case against Saddam, either having been involved in 9-11 or having violated tighter sanctions that we -- that we designed that tighten the noose on him?"
Quote:
"There's a lot of us who voted for giving the president the authority to take down Saddam Hussein if he didn't disarm," Biden said, "And there are those who believe, at the end of the day, even though it wasn't handled all that well, we still have to take him down."
"I support the president. I support the troops. We should make no distinction. We should have one voice going out to the whole world that we're together," Biden said. "We should be on the floor of the United States Senate and every capital in the world hear one voice from both parties, saying, we support the troops. We support the president."
It's not a meme, it's simple documented fact. Biden chose to use his vote as a senator to enable the Iraq war instead of voting against it. That vote alone means that he supported and enabled the Iraq war. But further, he chose to speak out in favor of the war. The fact that 'just about everyone' at the time supported the war isn't a justification of anything. Biden claims that there was some personal assurance from Bush that Bush backed out of, Bush denies that claim, and they're both professional politicians who routinely lie, so I don't buy that at all. If he was fooled, he failed in his job as a Senator to use the powers available to him to make a good choice.

And you think he changed his tune after because he was fooled, I think he changed his tune because the war became hugely unpopular and it was convenient to become 'antiwar all along' after the fact.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/polit...owa/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/polit...ile/index.html

Quote:
Next- "the dems" dont choose their candidate by going over a list and picking the one that has the most appeal to everyone. The voters choose.
Then it's incumbent on "the voters" to choose a good candidate and not to rely on some weird "I will vote for who I want, but you're obligated to vote for who I want instead of following any principles you might have".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Suck it up. You're the minority faction. Why should the majority faction give in to the minority?
I thought you just said that this was a terrible emergency and that people should compromise their principles to prevent it? "Suck it up" doesn't offer an explanation of why only people who have to "suck it up" are the other guys and not you. And it's the kind of argument that encourages people to vote against whatever it is that you want out of spite.
  #48  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:24 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,813
Biden went along with the conventional wisdom and made the politically easy choice to support the Iraq war. That's a mark against him, just as it was for Hillary Clinton. Obama, and Bernie, to their credit, both opposed the war. That demonstrates both better judgment and superior political courage, at least on this issue.

Doesn't mean Biden is evil, just that Bernie did better on this very important decision than he did.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #49  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:08 PM
asterion is offline
Your Ad Here
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post

And, well, if third party voters who leaned left had all voted Clinton in 2016, Trump would have lost. Your impracticality and idealism caused really damage in the world.
And what would have happened if simultaneously all right-leaning voters who voted third-party voted for Trump? Who wins when all third-party votes are pushed one way or the other? (I honestly haven't seen this analysis and want to know what the answer is.)
  #50  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
It's not a meme, it's simple documented fact. Biden chose to use his vote as a senator to enable the Iraq war instead of voting against it. That vote alone means that he supported and enabled the Iraq war. But further, he chose to speak out in favor of the war. The fact that 'just about everyone' at the time supported the war isn't a justification of anything. Biden claims that there was some personal assurance from Bush that Bush backed out of, Bush denies that claim, and they're both professional politicians who routinely lie, so I don't buy that at all. If he was fooled, he failed in his job as a Senator to use the powers available to him to make a good choice. .
Yes, he was fooled. The CIA said there were WMDs. The UN said (originally) there were WMDs. The National Security Advisor said there were WMDs. The president said there were WMDs. Israeli Intelligence said there were WMDs. Saddam had used WMD vs his own people. And Saddam himself openly bragged he had WMDs. So yeah- "he was fooled" But it's pretty hard to disbelieve everyone.

And Bidens vote made no difference. If he had voted No, the outcome would have been the same. Bush bears full and total responsibility for Iraq, he lied to the People of the USA, he lied to the Senate and he lied to Biden. Sure he denies he said that, but since he lied to the Senate, to the House and to the People of the USA- including YOU- why do you believe Bush?

So, if you are gonna base your desire to let yet another open liar (who wants to start a war vs Iran ) have another four years in office to wipe his ass with the Constitution, and allow him to pack the court with conservatives Justices who will overrule Roe, who will get rid of the ACA, who will build a wall, etc- over the fact that Biden- along with everyone else) was fooled by Bushes lies 18 fucking years ago- then go ahead.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017