If we are trying to save a house from a flood (Trump) by putting up sandbags, you can vote Hillary, and place a sandbag on the pile, or vote third party, and put a sandbag on the roof.
Everyone has work to do to save us from the flood. If you waste the little bit of work you can do on something as stupid as placing a sandbag on the roof, I’m fine assigning you blame when the floodwaters destroy the house.
Disagree. Because the margin of victory matters. Moreover, the margin of victory in each state matters since local pols will focus on that.
Trumpism won’t go away after the election: like other demagogues, Trump is likely to fizzle out but leave a mess for the rest of us to deal with. Methinks though that if Trump loses, say, Texas by five points (or wins it by 5 rather than 10) then it will affect the rhetoric and goals of future hopefuls both at the state and national level.
Moving away from Texax, here’s a chart by 538:
The Philadelphia area is getting bluer, rest of Pennsylvania redder
SHARE OF TWO-PARTY VOTE
YEAR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE PHILADELPHIA REST OF
MEDIA MARKET PENNSYLVANIA DIFFERENCE
1992 Bill Clinton 60% 53% +7
1996 Bill Clinton 62 51 +11
2000 Al Gore 61 47 +14
2004 John Kerry 61 45 +16
2008 Barack Obama 65 48 +17
2012 Barack Obama 63 45 +18
Source: OFFICIAL SOURCES VIA COOK POLITICAL REPORT
My point is that electoral data is sliced and diced by politicos. Flipping parties sends the loudest message.
This is not rocket science, and is no more complicate than exactly that. Well put, but so obvious you almost don’t want insult someone’s intelligence by pointing it out.
This. It is the civic duty of every voting citizen loyal to the ideals of the United States to cast a presidential ballot that will either cancel out a Trump vote or contribute to the overwhelming of his meager total. Only votes for Hillary Clinton can have that effect.
I think it’s a matter of perspective. However, I believe it’s certain that voting third-party may place our national security at risk due to the chance it may give for Trump to win the election. Hillary may be as dishonest as every other politician (like that’s a surprise about any of them 
) but the matters she’s been dishonest about are inconsequential compared to the risk of having Trump’s finger on the nuclear button while he has access to TV and Twitter. I say, if necessary, hold your nose and save America.
If you really want to prevent Trump from winning, forget about your own vote. There are few things more statistically certain than that your individual vote isn’t going to matter one way or another. Go out and convince as many people as possible to vote for HRC. That’s something you can do that might swing the election, but even that is unlikely unless you are able to convince lots and lots of people.
It’s only voting for Trump if you would choose Clinton if you had to. If you’d choose Trump if those were your only two choices, a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Clinton.
Nitpick: it’s “yea or nay,” not “yay.”
It’s obviously not a general logical principal to unconditionally say it helps Trump if you vote for Johnson. Just look at any right leaning board or comment thread and they are loaded with statements that Johnson voters are helping Clinton, because their assumption is that the person is choosing between Trump and Johnson. Here it’s presumably that the person is choosing between Clinton and Johnson.
And there are probably more than a few people considering Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein. Ideologically oriented (if often only socially so*) people IME sometimes have trouble understanding how non-ideological a lot of people are.
As to who the minor parties hurt more, on average in polls so far it’s been Clinton, by around 1% point. It seems Johnson is very close to a wash in his effect on the majors, Stein helps the Republicans. But it could change, and the effect will probably shrink and only be important if the race is otherwise extremely close, which it’s not right now.
*just go with the flow of their circle, not the type of personality to be the contrarian.
Yes, this exactly. Only a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, and only a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary. A vote for an independent party is half of a vote for Trump and Half of a vote for Clinton. Now if you actually think that Hillary would make a better president than Trump, then voting for a third party is not as good as giving her your full vote, but its better than voting for Trump.
A third party vote is approximately half a vote for whichever of the major-party candidates you like less.
I agree that it will come down to swing states. However, it might not be Florida or Ohio this time. The demographics of Trump’s appeal means that a lot of northern states might be more in play this time around, while Florida might be more safely blue, so that the determining state might be, say, Pennsylvania or Iowa, because how this appeal to a different demographic and how safe their turnout is will be difficult to forecast.
I do not think the 3rd party vote would be as bad for Hillary as some think. For example in 92, the Perot voters CLEARLY put Bill Clinton in the White House. However this year a lot of disaffected voters are Republican as Trump is so clearly polarizing at best and bat shit crazy at worst.
Stein/Green Party voters would help Trump for sure, but I think there are far more potential GOP voters looking at the Libertarian camp.
Louisiana is going to go red. So what if I vote for a third party candidate? This country needs more than two shitty parties and hopefully this will be a start.
Our winner-take-all/first-past-the-post system guarantees a two-party system. If you want a multi-party system, then you have to change our electoral system at a structural level. Occasionally voting for third parties will do nothing but occasionally create spoiler opportunities.
I’d like to see us adopt some of the features of the New Zealand system.
Agreed.
The determining question is: if you were forced to vote between Clinton and Trump, who would you choose? If Clinton, and you choose to abstain or vote third party, you are essentially casting half-a-vote for Trump, mathematically speaking. Of course, if your forced-binary-vote choice would be Trump, then your abstaining or third party choice is equivalent to half-a-vote for Clinton.
What Sterling Archer said.
If don’t live in a swing state, it’s not likely to matter who you vote for. I could vote for Clinton all day but she ain’t gonna carry Tennessee - or, if she does, she’ll have won so many states she won’t need it.
But I’ll still vote for her anyway because a vote for Jill Stein (or whomever) is one fewer vote Trump needs to get.
Math is perfect. 
A vote for Other is exacty the same as half-a-vote for Clinton AND half-a-vote for Trump.
Yes. FL and OH were the key tipping states a decade ago, but those are must-win for the GOP now. The biggest tipping states today are PA and VA.
With Trump doing especially well among whites, there is a real risk, this election, that Trump will take PA (and OH, FL) and win, while losing all the other swing states.
Well, I’m convinced. Clearly I have to actually vote for Donald Trump. Then somehow also vote for Hillary Clinton.
I may go to prison, but it’s the only way to really vote against both of them. :eek: