Support for what? Or for not being Hillary?
No you don’t.
Different meaning what? That, unlike “sold out” voters, you don’t want your vote to matter. Or for your agenda to be taken seriously, because you don’t have one and can’t articulate one. Being None Of The Above does not qualify.
Only if the loser party stands *for *something. To repeat, what are you for? If you’re not working *for *that via the only mean you can accomplish it, then don’t tell us you’re for anything.
I’d look at it like this, in a system like Australia’s with instant run off preference voting, you rank your preferred candidates from 1 to x. If no candidate wins an outright majority in first preference votes, the candidate with the least is removed. Then the remaining candidates are tallied again, this time with all their first preference votes PLUS any second preference votes they were given. If no candidate attains a majority, you again remove the lowest voted for candidate and in the next round, the remaining candidates get all their first and second preference votes, plus third preference votes. The process repeating until a candidate has a majority of votes cast in a given round of instant runoff voting.
So, let’s say that we hypothetically had this system in America. If your “first preference” vote is Jill Stein, and your “second preference” vote is Hillary Clinton, and your “third preference” vote is Gary Johnson, and your fourth preference vote is Donald Trump [Australian IRV you must vote preference for every candidate listed, so you cannot churlishly say, “I NEVER prefer Trump, and will not number him!” if you leave the box next to his name blank, your entire ballot is thrown out.] Now, since we don’t actually have this system, you have to choose one candidate on election day. Let’s say you choose Jill Stein. In essence, you’re “working against your interests.” Because while Stein was your first preference vote, literally anyone with a working brain knows she can never win. So in effect, your “second” and “third” preference candidates, Hillary and Johnson, are actually being “denied a vote” that could’ve gone to them, and instead went to a candidate who can never win (Johnson also can’t win obv.) So in this effect, since Trump is your least preferred candidate, and you’ve voted for a candidate who cannot win, instead of a higher-than-Trump preferred candidate who can win, you’re essentially denying said candidate a vote.
That isn’t quite the same thing as voting for Trump, but it’s similar to a Hillary supporter “spoiling their ballot” by filling it out incorrectly, which makes it easier for Trump to win in a FPTP system (there is one less vote out against him, so the # he has to hit to “be first past the post” is lower.)
This is also true if you flip it, if Hillary is your least preferred candidate and say, Ron Johnson is your most preferred, a vote for him is still hurting a guy (Trump) that you prefer more than your least preferred candidate.
I like instant runoff voting, and I also wish more Americans could “think this way” even though our system doesn’t work this way. Instant run off voting forces people to think about their preference instead of just making a “singular choice.”
This is also why I like IRV–staying home isn’t a choice. Or rather, you do stay at home, since voting is by mail, but it’s compulsory. Now, you can intentionally spoil your ballot, but most people don’t do that in Australia. Instead, Australians generally accept that they have to vote and they have to rank their preferences.
This would be impossible for Bernie supporters, who would insist on being able to put " 1" next to his name" and refuse to rank any other candidate. But they’re generally not a logical lot.
Perhaps you’re the one who isn’t logical. I was a staunch Bernie supporter, and now I’m a staunch Hillary supporter. OK, not being a US citizen or resident I can’t vote in US elections, but some of my family can and will, and they feel just the same way – Bernie was the ideal, but with Bernie out of the picture, Hillary is the only logical option, and Trump is a danger to the entire world. Given that Trump is on the ballot, it’s hard to imagine anyone except possibly the Devil incarnate on the Democratic side that would change this.
I wasn’t sure which thread was best. I’ll be happy to repost it in another thread. Suggestion?
Since this thread is about Republicans(*) who are considering not voting for Trump, it seemed worthwhile to offer a view comparing Trump with more ordinary Republicans.
(* - Yes, I know some Bernie-brats are considering not voting for Hillary. :eek: But I don’t think anyone who supported Bernie’s agenda but is unable to connect the dots and understand the importance of voting Hillary has anything to contribute or learn here.)
I was talking about the difference between not voting (which could be anything from “none of the above” to “any of the above”) and voting for a third party. Voting for a third party is as articulate as it gets! A third party probably has an articulate and specific platform. The GOP might arguably have one, with all those pledges. The Democrats, as a rule, do not.
Depends. Look if you are in CA, go ahead and vote 3rd party. A protest vote- I get it.
But if you do so in Florida, know that you will be at least partially responsible to a GWB like disaster. And 8 years of GWB was a disaster. Any Naderite who can say that GWB was better than Gore would have been is insane.
We must keep Trump out.
No. They have exactly the same effect.
Yes, and the “message” you send thereby is “I am not a responsible citizen and my vote doesn’t matter.” :rolleyes:
But you don’t care what that is as long as it includes not being Hillary. We do get it.
Bernie lost. Move on to the next *best *thing.