Showing Trump she got it going.
I don't think another dynasty is something I want.
Printable View
Showing Trump she got it going.
I don't think another dynasty is something I want.
I won't vote for her. She's a flawed candidate, and I don't trust her. I also don't like the political dynasty thing.
I'll cast my vote for either the libertarian or green party candidate, because the (R) and (D) candidates are such bad choices. Some say that's throwing my vote away, or that not voting at all would be better, but I disagree.
That's... worse than throwing your vote away.
No it's not, it's casting a vote for what you believe in. Throwing your vote away is not voting at all.
I have always known that of all the people on this forum you're the one most likely to enable Trump :o
If you believe that Trump risks jeopardizing American democracy and its way of life, you kind of have a responsibility to make sure he doesn't get elected. It's nice and easy to vote one's conscience and support some harmless third party (who all have zany policies by the way), but what if that allows for a Trump victory? Are you going to be patting yourself on the back that you didn't vote for either of the major party candidates? You'd do anything to get the Greens or Libertarians federal funding for next election, even if it means having Trump for 4 years?
All right, who'll be Clinton's VP candidate?
Will it be Sanders?
If she picks Sanders, will that protect her forever* from the threat of indictment?
*or for as long as Sanders lives
It won't be Sanders. If she opts for the lefty wing of the DNC, it will be Warren.
If the Green or the Libertarian candidates is the closest to matching her views and what she wants this election, than it's not. It's not going to help keep Trump out but the system isn't helped by everyone engaging in strategic voting either. Voting for who you genuinely think is the best candidate is never a wrong choice. It may not be an optimal choice in an unideal world, but it's certainly above throwing your vote away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Oooooh, the idealistic world-view! Yes, sir, stand for your ideals and damn the consequences!Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Which is a nice sentiment if you yourself are the only one to suffer said consequences. It's not so nice when you drag others with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Presidential candidates don't often take their biggest primary opponent as their running mate do they? Outside the West Wing at least :p
Re: voting for third party candidates. It depends entirely on where you live. If you live in a safe blue or red state you might as well vote with your conscience because your vote is wasted whatever you do, because lol fptp.
If you live in a swing state I think you'd need to real long think before voting for a third party in an election year like this
No, they don't. And Sanders doesn't seem like the type who'd want to be vice president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I agree in principle but I think that there are different ways to look at it, specifically wrt what makes a candidate "best" and most deserving of your vote. A third party candidate may match your views best but may also have zero chance of being elected. In that case it's worth considering how well the other two candidates match your views. Clinton, for example, may match about 30% of GGT's views while Trump may match about 10%. Then, Clinton should be favorable compared to both Trump and a third party candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It may also be the case that the undesirability of candidates' policy positions may be more important than their desirability. For example, it may be more important to obstruct Trump's plans to torture dachshund puppies than to cast a symbolic vote for a third party candidate, even if that means letting Clinton change the national anthem to Tubthumpin'.
Some elections it may be more important to vote for one's ideal third party preference than to be "strategic". I just don't know if this is such an election, unless GGT truly sees Trump and Clinton as being equally--and only slightly--undesirable. Esp. if she lives in a swing state.
So GGT, if you had to be clear about your preferences, who do you believe would be worse: Trump, or Clinton?
How much worse do you believe that candidate would be than his/her opponent?
How bad do you believe that candidate would be in more absolute terms?
Wait, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If I was an American I'd be voting Clinton. In the primaries I'd have voted Rubio.
Well said. It also has a strategic long-term effect of allowing change not this time but potentially next time. If you view both Trump and Clinton as awful and neither as especially worse than the other (I don't) then if enough vote for a third party that could influence a major party to become more like the third party and thus more like what you want in the long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Short term loss of a vote for long term gain. That's no good immediately but better than throwing your vote away.
Good point. If your state isn't swinging either way then why not vote for what you really want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
You have to weigh that against the alternative scenario, which is short term loss of a vote for long term loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If Trump were to win then it's more likely that the GOP would shift in his direction rather than taking the risk of alienating his supporters in favor of trying to attract enough of those who voted for a third party candidate.
That's true whether you vote for a third party or throw away your vote.
So how is a third party vote worse?
Mathematically there's no significant difference between the two. In a clear red or blue state there's no significant difference between the two. Currently the odds are mostly against a Trump victory anyway, so, probabilistically, there's probably little difference between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
While I was being overly simplistic, when I say "worse" I am speaking from a particular ethical perspective that GGT and others may not share and it's mostly only valid (from my perspective) in a swing state under the US electoral system. It rests on the assumption that Trump is so bad that those who oppose him should be obligated to actively ensure his defeat by helping to widen the margin between him and Clinton instead of either not doing anything or doing something that doesn't contribute to ensuring his defeat.
Previously on this board we've discussed the moral differences between commission and omission. In this case, from my perspective, voting for a third party candidate in a swing state would be to actively contribute to making it a dangerously close race that could go either way with one outcome being disastrous. In this respect it would be akin to gross negligence or reckless endangerment, only one step removed from deliberately voting Trump into office and slightly worse than simply failing to act. It would in effect be closer to a crime of commission than to a crime of omission.
I can see arguments in favour of voting for a third party, eg. sending a clear signal to the established parties--esp. the GOP--about voter preferences. I just don't think that signal will be as clear or as well-received as the signal from a landslide Democratic victory.
I have no doubt Fuzzy would disagree with the analogies and with the sloppy use of semi-legal terminology, and who knows how he feels about alternate ethical/moral perspectives, but it's not as if he can come here and slap me in the face :downcast:
I can understand the logic that voting for a third party if your vote could be meaningful is as bad as throwing your vote away - I'd agree with that in fact.
It was your claim that it would be worse which I took umbrage to.
http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton...ership-quality
Interesting look behind the curtain
Honestly even in a swing state... we are dealing with numbers where it is a massively statistically unlikely event that one vote will make the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Doesn't matter, if you encourage that attitude we won't just be talking one vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
This is the most bullshit of replies ever,. Here's why, allow me to enlighten you Aimless because as smart as you are and as educated as you are, I would hate for you to say something that is without merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
5% of the vote gives a party access to federal money for campaigns.
http://postlibertarian.com/2012/09/2...ent-threshold/
Yes, I'm well aware, and if I'm not mistaken it's been a while since a third party candidate succeeded in getting 5% of the vote. So perhaps it's no great loss if they can't reach that goal this time either and perhaps this may be the worst election in the last couple of decades to decide that you absolutely must help a third party candidate get 5% of the votes. Reckless endangerment at the most inopportune time, for dubious gain. But I'll grant you that helping a third party candidate secure enough votes to get more funding is something worthwhile in principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
Much good that will do if the price is 4 years of Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
Do you honestly think a strong Libertarian showing will hurt Clinton more than Trump?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
argh
My point is if voting third party even marginally increases the chance of Trump winning, it's not worth it. If Clinton is winning by a landslide, sure, vote your conscience. Though do remember how many recent polls ended up underestimating support for right/far right candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Sorry Loki, while I may have voted for Rubio, I would never vote for Trump, but I should as hell would never vote for Clinton either.
I'm done with the 2 major parties, and your mind set will NEVER get us out from under them.
Are you really going to equate the two? Clinton is your typical politician, with all the pros and cons that entails. Trump is an egotistic, racist (in policy), wannabe dictator who's explicitly rejected half of the Bill of Rights. If he was elected, he'd be the least competent and more authoritarian president since Jackson. If Clinton was elected, she'd be the worst president since Bush Jr.
And it's not a "mindset" that perpetuates our two-party system. It's the first-past-the-post electoral system. No amount of third-party whining will change that.
This pretty much sums up my voting philosophy for as long as I've been going to the ballot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
How has that worked for you? Third parties getting more votes than before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Well, I'm by no means a mathematician, but by my calculations I have increased the number of votes given to third party presidential candidates by one every four years. Of course, not being dead or from Chicago significantly hampers my ability to vote more than once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Honestly seems like the best strategy for independents to pursue would be to work within the two party system and hold a randomly selected party hostage every election :o
Trump is a turd but the nice part about our political system is that we do actually have checks and balances. Which is why Obama's executive orders should make a lot of people cautious. Too many people are happy with their desired outcome even if it was done in the 'wrong' way. What one party can do - so can the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I suspect Trump won't dramatically change life as we know it. He'll have his enemies list and he'll get us into a trade war that increases the costs of basic goods and services. (Assuming he's even telling the truth about it). The sky is falling is a bit overplayed on the side of both parties.
You mention Obama's executive orders, and promptly assume Trump won't use even more...You're also forgetting that the president is in charge of the bureaucracy, including the military. He can do a hell of a lot of damage before anyone is able to stop him. This is a man who spits on freedom of speech, religion, and the press. You'd have to be pretty deluded to think this won't inform his policy decisions.
Jackson was, and remains, a fairly popular President though, however unwise we think he was. You and I may think people who are hostile to the idea of Hillary as President as they are to Trump are wrong but if they do think that they're right to vote for third parties or not vote at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Still, no harm in trying to persuade a person to re-examine the specific issues that may underlie an apparent belief in the two being equally bad.