Support NeoGAF

[DataStream]

And if Gore had won all the states Clinton did, he would've won. And if Gore hadn't picked Lieberman and kept Clinton on the bench, he would've won. And if Bush/Harris weren't in power in FL, he would have won. And if he had done better in the debates he would've won. And if he was more personally charismatic he would've won. And if Bush was a weaker candidate, Gore would've won. But no, the weird, cherry-picked/half-recounted tally of a third party candidate in one state, whose supporters were not "Gore would've-beens" anyway, were the problem


Do you honestly think anyone in this thread is unaware of how the electoral college works?

Well, you seem to not understand that third party candidates will inevitably fail or end up integrating into a two-party system (like Bernie has in this election). The privilege to weigh the negative impact of a missed vote giving power to someone opposed to most of your ideals against whatever positive impact you believe protest voting would have is up to the individual. However, the inherent structure of our political system means that maintaining power in aggregate is necessary to sustain change.

 

[uncelestial]

Sure, but none of that changes the fact that the result in Florida in 2000 shows that voting for a third party candidate over a major party candidate can be counterproductive in advancing the issues you care about, even if you are less ideologically aligned with the latter. It's a simple reality of the US electoral system specifically and politics more generally.

Put another way, what was the net benefit of voting for Nader in Florida in 2000?

Who gives a shit? In the scheme of things that is probably the 400th most important thing that led to Gore's loss. And frankly if you can't spare 500 votes to a third party in an election for President of the US, that's not on the third party, that's on you. "Deez Nuts" got exponentially more votes than that.

 

[sphagnum]

Ultimately, it depends on how much power those who would be on the board wield. Even if they are electable, you're going to inevitably run into the same issues that we have with money's corrupting influence on politics... There's a history of people who have led revolutions in the name of a more just government and society, only to take control and rule it as a dictator.

There certainly is, but that's also true of liberal revolutions and revolutions in general, not just socialist revolutions. Democracy is always going to have some kind of inherent tension. Doesn't mean it's not worth it.

If a democracy works the way it should, capitalism would work perfectly as a balance between the worker and the employer. We should work on fixing that relationship first.

Capitalism can never work as a balance between worker and employer, because the purpose of capitalism is to benefit the employer. Unions work as a mediator between worker and employer. Fascism claims to work as a mediator between worker and employer (although we know what that really is). Social democracy is the system that tries to balance it out but it's still reliant on capitalism and therefore can be stripped away over time, as we have been seeing in parts of Europe.

I don't want there to be a division, in the end result, between worker and employer. I want people to be able to pursue their own desires without worry of employment.

 

[kirblar]

Congratulations to the Democratic party for not making electoral reform a main staple of their platform after that happened. Instead, its digging their heels in and making efforts to make sure 3rd party candidates don't gain any traction.

You're a collective group of people who've gathered and organized for years under common interests. Why would you want an outsider to be able to come in and hijack your leadership?

Why would you want a Trump?

 

[Maxim726X]

Congratulations to the Democratic party for not making electoral reform a main staple of their platform after that happened. Instead, its digging their heels in and making efforts to make sure 3rd party candidates don't gain any traction.

... Why exactly would they want to do that? Are they interested in throwing away future elections?

There's a reason neither party supports fringe movements- Because it splinters the vote. If you're interested in losing elections, it's the way to go!

Capitalism can never work as a balance between worker and employer, because the purpose of capitalism is to benefit the employer. Unions work as a mediator between worker and employer. Fascism claims to work as a mediator between worker and employer (although we know what that really is). Social democracy is the system that tries to balance it out but it's still reliant on capitalism and therefore can be stripped away over time, as we have been seeing in parts of Europe.

Yes, and one of the purposes of democracy is to even the playing field for the employee, as they are the one with voting power. In theory, the balance should work. And there are examples where it does, but when Democracy is too beholden to big money, it doesn't.

 

[uncelestial]

Well, you seem to not understand that third party candidates will inevitably fail or end up integrating into a two-party system (like Bernie has in this election). The privilege to weigh the negative impact of a missed vote giving power to someone opposed to most of your ideals against whatever positive impact you believe protest voting would have is up to the individual. However, the inherent structure of our political system means that maintaining power in aggregate is necessary to sustain change.

I completely understand the very, very long odds that third party candidates face, and I understand that an usurped 1st party would fight hard to come back. No one is unfamiliar with the argument for pragmatism in the voting booth. The case against third party voting that relies on "sustained" power is pretty pie in the sky. Completely uncharted territory in American politics, and highly questionable at best that the Democrats would start repealing leftist reforms as soon as they wrested power back from, say, the Green Party.

 

[sphagnum]

This thread is much more cordial right now. Completely off topic but cordial.

I know that GAF is a liberal board and not a leftist board, but I know that a lot of liberals have leftist leanings, and I'm convinced a lot of liberals would be more supportive of socialism than they may realize.

I wish Bernie had been a better socialist candidate to make this sort of thing palatable, and I wish Hillary had any socialist leanings at all. Perhaps if more of Bernie's supporters had been actual socialists we could have more substantial conversations, because then there would actually be things to discuss.

 

[pigeon]

I know that GAF is a liberal board and not a leftist board, but I know that a lot of liberals have leftist leanings, and I'm convinced a lot of liberals would be more supportive of socialism than they may realize.

I wish Bernie had been a better socialist candidate to make this sort of thing palatable, and I wish Hillary had any socialist leanings at all. Perhaps if more of Bernie's supporters had been actual socialists we could have more substantial conversations, because then there would actually be things to discuss.

I think Hillary is a social democrat -- she has been pretty clear about her desire to expand social programs, welfare, job programs for people in areas with structural unemployment, etc.

She is just an American social democrat which means she doesn't talk about it much.

 

[B4s5C]

... Why exactly would they want to do that? Are they interested in throwing away future elections?

There's a reason neither party supports fringe movements- Because it splinters the vote. If you're interested in losing elections, it's the way to go!

They don't have to support them.

Instead, advocate for the abolishment of the electoral college and/or instituting ranked choice/instant runoff. You see throughout this thread that you either have to vote Dem or Repub and if you are progressive, if you don't vote for a dem, you are throwing your vote away (to these people).

To me, that is inherently wrong and part of a flawed system. Every four years you don't tell people to vote one or the other, you let them vote how they want to vote, for who they want to vote for.

http://www.fairvote.org/

 

[Balphon]

Who gives a shit? In the scheme of things that is probably the 400th most important thing that lead to Gore's loss. And frankly if you can't spare 500 votes to a third party in an election for President of the US, that's not on the third party, that's on you.

You're missing the point. You are advocating for the notion of voting entirely based on conscience, which is fine in principle.

However, you cannot simply ignore the reality that doing so might, in fact, be self-destructive when the met result is the victory of the candidate most ideologically opposed to you. The result in 2000 is merely an example of this writ large, and is certainly not the only historical example even if limited to elections for the Presidency -- see 1824, 1888, 1992, etc.

 

[Maxim726X]

They don't have to support them.

Instead, advocate for the abolishment of the electoral college or instituting ranked choice/instant runoff. You see throughout this thread that you either have to vote Dem or Repub and if you are progressive, if you don't vote for a dem, you are throwing your vote away.

To me, that is inherently wrong and part of a flawed system. Every four years you don't tell people to vote one or the other, you let them vote how they want to vote, for who they want to vote for.

http://www.fairvote.org/

No one is telling you who to vote for... And anyone is free to vote/run 3rd party.

Just know that you're throwing away your vote. And that's your prerogative. There's no conspiracy at play here, it's just reality.

And yes, the EC is extremely antiquated, and certainly needs to be replaced.

 

[B4s5C]

No one is telling you who to vote for... And anyone is free to vote 3rd party.

Just know that you're throwing away your vote. And that's your prerogative. There's no conspiracy at play here, it's just reality.

And yes, the EC is extremely antiquated, and certainly needs to be replaced.

So, you agree that the system is broken.

No vote should have their vote thrown away and no group of people should be guilted into voting for the lesser of two evils.

Edit: And the fact is, the Dems could have pushed this after the 2000 elections. Its a classic case of where it failed and the popular vote should reign.

 

[teruterubozu]

No one is telling you who to vote for...

lol. Coulda fooled me.

 

[Fenderputty]

I know that GAF is a liberal board and not a leftist board, but I know that a lot of liberals have leftist leanings, and I'm convinced a lot of liberals would be more supportive of socialism than they may realize.

I wish Bernie had been a better socialist candidate to make this sort of thing palatable, and I wish Hillary had any socialist leanings at all. Perhaps if more of Bernie's supporters had been actual socialists we could have more substantial conversations, because then there would actually be things to discuss.

The country isn't ready for this. It's just not. 45%-50% of the voting population votes for corporate interests above their own because of singular pet issues and of the other half, about 50% of them are still old enough to remember the red scare. We're another couple of decades away I think.

I think Hillary is a social democrat -- she has been pretty clear about her desire to expand social programs, welfare, job programs for people in areas with structural unemployment, etc.

She is just an American social democrat which means she doesn't talk about it much.

She's definitely more liberal that the average Bernie supporter gives her credit for.

 

[kirblar]

So, you agree that the system is broken.

No vote should have their vote thrown away and no group of people should be guilted into voting for the lesser of two evils.

To make changes to a system, you need to control it first.

You don't get anywhere whining from the outside about how the game is rigged.

 

[sphagnum]

And that's why our government isn't set up as a business.

And that same structure that works for one is horrific for the other. Context matters.

Co-ops are "horrific"? I haven't even been advocating for central planning in this thread. I've been saying I'd be supportive of more co-ops.

Yes, and one of the purposes of democracy is to even the playing field for the employee, as they are the one with voting power. In theory, the balance should work. And there are examples where it does, but when Democracy is too beholden to big money, it doesn't.

I assume you mean that social democracy is the example where it's working. Sure, it works better, but not enough. It's not like there isn't joblessness and homelessness and poverty and so forth in social democracies. Less, but it's still there. It's not like there isn't still exploitation or wealth hoarding. Social democracy is a tradeoff that capitalists use to stem the tide of revolutionary fervor, giving the workers a cut of the pie to keep them happy.

I say the workers should have all the pie, because it belongs to them. And they can democratically decide how to divide up that pie themselves without having some guy come in an own the pie and take most of it for himself and decide how much the rest can have it divided for them.

 

[Maxim726X]

So, you agree that the system is broken.

No vote should be inherently thrown away and no group of people should be guilted into voting for the lesser of two evils.

The EC is broken.

Third party candidates still wouldn't be viable in a national election even if you go strictly by popular vote, or at least there is no evidence that this has ever been the case. Using this election as an example, you'd be assuring Donald Trump of a victory. Again, that's just reality.

 

[kirblar]

Co-ops are "horrific"? I haven't even been advocating for central planning in this thread. I've been saying I'd be supportive of more co-ops.

Yes. When they're not voluntary.

Letting people reap the benefits of a new idea/process/combination/etc is a very good thing. Letting people own their destiny is a good thing.

 

[B4s5C]

To make changes to a system, you need to control it first.

You don't get anywhere whining from the outside about how the game is rigged.

And here I am, saying, make it part of the party platform.

Dems have had the White House for almost 8 years. Electoral reform hasn't been brought up.

It sounds like you are putting words in my mouth, claiming I am whining. If you want to take this conversation down that route, don't bother expecting a response from me.

 

[Maxim726X]

lol. Coulda fooled me.

Well, you must be easily fooled.

But I'll say it again- Vote for whomever you like. Just don't be under the illusion that you're a paragon of righteousness. You'll just assure the candidate who's likely to be your polar opposite the white house.

So... Congratulations?

 

[Box of Kittens]

I don't think it's fair to call the notion that Nader cost Gore the election a "debunked myth" when the academic literature is somewhat equivocal on the matter of whether Gore would have picked up 537+ net votes in Florida in a Nader-less election. It's not a clear-cut case like 1992 where the data is overwhelming that Perot did not impact the winner of the election.

In terms of factors that cost Gore the election, once can place relative importance on Nader votes (and rhetoric), the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, Gore's overall weakness as a candidate, the scorched-earth tactics Congress used to sink Bill Clinton's favorables, butterfly ballots, and who knows what else.

However, in terms of things a voter can control, it pretty much comes down to one's vote. That is, an individual voter can't do much of anything to alter campaign strategy, or decisions made by a state's governor or attorney general. An individual can make a decision to vote or not, and which candidate to vote for. Nader in 2000 can be seen as a cautionary tale to voters about voting for a third party candidate in a close state as opposed to the major-party candidate who best aligns with one's views. The Bush presidency itself is a cautionary tale of the narrative (pushed hard by Nader) that the two major parties are basically the same. We are still paying today (and will continue to pay for a long time) because of decisions that Bush made. Decisions Gore would've handled differently.

One can still reasonably debate the merits of voting strategically vs. voting third party. But said decisions can alter the outcome of an election and instead of hand waving it away with "if the candidate were good enough it wouldn't matter" we should acknowledge that the potential consequences of one's vote are a very real concern and something that should be weighed. In other words, I'm not saying that one can't reasonably come to the conclusion that they should vote third party, but that one should at least consider the arguments against doing so.

 

[B4s5C]

The EC is broken.

Third party candidates still wouldn't be viable in a national election even if you go strictly by popular vote, or at least there is no evidence that this has ever been the case. Using this election as an example, you'd be assuring Donald Drumpf of a victory. Again, that's just reality.

So in this election, Donald Trump is going to get the popular vote?

 

[sphagnum]

I think Hillary is a social democrat -- she has been pretty clear about her desire to expand social programs, welfare, job programs for people in areas with structural unemployment, etc.

She is just an American social democrat which means she doesn't talk about it much.

She ought to get on that then. This is the most liberal period we've had in decades. Nobody believes in or wants movement conservative solutions anymore. It's time to stop being afraid of this stuff.

The country isn't ready for this. It's just not. 45%-50% of the voting population votes for corporate interests above their own because of singular pet issues and of the other half, about 50% of them are still old enough to remember the red scare. We're another couple of decades away I think.

That's why I wish Bernie was more socialist (or more openly socialist, or whatever) so someone could start seeding this stuff. Someone needs to propose these things so we start pushing that overton window.

 

[Maxim726X]

So in this election, Donald Trump is going to get the popular vote?

If you split up the Democratic/Independent vote between Hillary and Bernie?

Absolutely.

 

[kirblar]

And here I am, saying, make it part of the party platform.

Dems have had the White House for almost 8 years. Electoral reform hasn't been brought up.

It sounds like you are putting words in my mouth, claiming I am whining. If you want to take this conversation down that route, don't bother expecting a response from me.

That was a shot at Sanders.

 

[teruterubozu]

Well, you must be easily fooled.

But I'll say it again- Vote for whomever you like. Just don't be under the illusion that you're a paragon of righteousness. You'll just assure the candidate who's likely to be your polar opposite the white house.

So... Congratulations?

Oh please. Never seen so much guilting/shaming in any election. It's hardly "nobody." And I'm an old, old man.

 

[Fenderputty]

And here I am, saying, make it part of the party platform.

Dems have had the White House for almost 8 years. Electoral reform hasn't been brought up.

It sounds like you are putting words in my mouth, claiming I am whining. If you want to take this conversation down that route, don't bother expecting a response from me.

What do you mean when you say electoral reform? Unless you implement a complete government change to something more parliamentary, a first past the post system with two dominate parties makes the most sense. Ask Canadians how they like Harper or how the UK likes the torries.

 

[B4s5C]

If you split up the Democratic party vote between Hillary and Bernie?

Absolutely.

...thats just the start to Electoral Reform. Everyone agrees that the Electoral College sucks. I am saying that should be the first step. It doesn't inherently support third parties, if thats how it came off, I apologize.

I am saying move to Ranked Choice to give people who are part of third parties a voice.

Here (For those who don't understand Ranked Choice):

How RCV Works
Ranked choice voting (RCV) describes voting systems that allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and then uses those rankings to elect candidates able to combine strong first choice support with the ability to earn second and third choice support.

RCV is straightforward for voters: rank candidates in order of choice. Voters can rank as many candidates as they want, without fear that ranking others will hurt the chances of their favorite candidate. Exit polls and ballot analyses from ranked choice voting elections demonstrate that voters overwhelmingly understood how to rank candidates.

How the votes are counted depends on whether RCV is used to elect a single office, like a mayor or governor, or if it is used to elect more than one position at once, like for a city council or state legislature or for Congress in a multi-winner district.

When Electing One Candidate to Office
For a single office, like for a mayor or governor, RCV helps to elect a candidate more reflective of a majority of voters in a single election even when several viable candidates are in the race. It does this by counting the votes in rounds:

First, every vote counts for its first choice. If a candidate has more than half of the vote based on first-choices, that candidate wins. If no candidate has more than half of those votes, then the candidate with the fewest first choices is eliminated. The voters who selected the defeated candidate as a first choice will then have their votes added to the totals of their next choice. This process continues until a candidate has more than half of the active votes or only two candidates remain. The candidate with a majority among the active candidates is declared the winner. This video demonstrates the process:

 

[Maxim726X]

Oh please. Never seen so much guilting/shaming in any election. And I'm an old, old man.

Can't help that you happen to be quite sensitive... Even in your old age.

But that doesn't change the fact that I never said you couldn't vote for who you want to- Just that voting third party has consequences. That's the truth, can't really see how any rational person could deny that.

 

[Valhelm]

That's why I wish Bernie was more socialist (or more openly socialist, or whatever) so someone could start seeding this stuff. Someone needs to propose these things so we start pushing that overton window.

He seems to be doing a little bit, at least by using the word socialism. There's been a pretty big rise in millennial class consciousness, especially on sites like Reddit and Tumblr. This has had zero real-world impact, but it seems that younger voters are much less averse to anti-capitalist sentiment.

 

[Box of Kittens]

So, you agree that the system is broken.

No vote should have their vote thrown away and no group of people should be guilted into voting for the lesser of two evils.

Edit: And the fact is, the Dems could have pushed this after the 2000 elections. Its a classic case of where it failed and the popular vote should reign.

Pushed how? Many Dems did argue for getting rid of the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote Compact (which I am actually somewhat ambivalent on but that's another story) passed several state legislatures. What more could or should they have done, especially without control of Congress after the 2000 election?

More generally, I disagree with the notion that advocating for voting for a major party candidate amounts to guilting people into voting for the lesser of two evils, just as I hate how advocating voting for a certain candidate amounts to saying that candidate is entitled to one's vote. It's like people say "we need to be convinced to vote for you" in one breath and then turn around the moment you start making the case and saying "we don't want to hear it."

 

[B4s5C]

That was a shot at Sanders.

My post is not about Sanders. It is about a system where every four years you end up voting for the lesser of two evils. I am saying the Dems should have taken the steps to making electoral reform a part of the party platform when Gore lost the 2000 elections because a small percentage of Florida votes determined the election for the other 49 states.

 

[kirblar]

Our crappy health care system is an accidental side effect of bad economic policy, btw.

No one deliberately set it up this way, and by the time people realized it was an abomination, it was firmly established as the status quo.

To change things on a large scale, you need lots of time and patience and incremental change. That requires building infrastructure and wining elections and keeping control.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Oh please. Never seen so much guilting/shaming in any election. It's hardly "nobody." And I'm an old, old man.

I'm sorry that you're being guilted into making sure Donald Trump is not the most powerful man on earth.

 

[Maxim726X]

...thats just the start to Electoral Reform. Everyone agrees that the Electoral College sucks. I am saying that should be the first step. It doesn't inherently support third parties, if thats how it came off, I apologize.

I am saying move to Ranked Choice to give people who are part of third parties a voice.

Here (For those who don't understand Ranked Choice):

That's interesting.

First I'm reading of it. I'll definitely give it a look.

 

[teruterubozu]

Can't help that you happen to be quite sensitive... Even in your old age.

But that doesn't change the fact that I never said you couldn't vote for who you want to- Just that voting third party has consequences. That's the truth, can't really see how any rational person could deny that.

Oh I see, so no I'm butthurt. Keep going.

 

[sphagnum]

Yes. When they're not voluntary.

Letting people reap the benefits of a new idea/process/combination/etc is a very good thing. Letting people own their destiny is a good thing.

You're framing it as if joining a company within capitalism is voluntary. It's not. I work somewhere because I have to or else I will die. That's not really truly voluntary. That doesn't change under socialism either. But in socialism at least I and my coworkers have more of a say in the matter.

Sure, I could start a company under capitalism and become that guy in charge. But I am more concerned with the benefit of all the workers, not just myself.

He seems to be doing a little bit, at least by using the word socialism. There's been a pretty big rise in millennial class consciousness, especially on sites like Reddit and Tumblr. This has had zero real-world impact, but it seems that younger voters are much less averse to anti-capitalist sentiment.

Yeah, that's more or less why I supported him.

 

[Maxim726X]

Oh I see, so no I'm butthurt. Keep going.

I don't know. Are you? It certainly seems that way.

If saying that voting third party is throwing your vote away, and helping Donald Trump win the presidency is 'shaming'... Well, I'm not sorry. Think what you will.

 

[kirblar]

You're framing it as if joining a company within capitalism is voluntary. It's not. I work somewhere because I have to or else I will die. That's not really truly voluntary. That doesn't change under socialism either. But in socialism at least I and my coworkers have more of a say in the matter.

Sure, I could start a company under capitalism and become that guy in charge. But I am more concerned with the benefit of all the workers, not just myself.

You shouldn't have to be concerned with the benefit of the workers. Business is terrible at doing that because their interests don't align. It's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Things like basic income, portable benefits- those are the solutions we need, not retreads of failed ideas that cripple economies.

 

[Plumbob]

If you don't understand the idea of opportunity cost (even by another name) it's really hard to be a competent voter.

 

[B4s5C]

Pushed how? Many Dems did argue for getting rid of the Electoral College and the National Popular Vote Compact (which I am actually somewhat ambivalent on but that's another story) passed several state legislatures. What more could or should they have done, especially without control of Congress after the 2000 election?

Keep it a topic after the year 2000 for one. It has been 16 years and during that time and Dems had a majority in 2008.

Of course, this requires an amendment for the Constitution and agreement from both sides. Which, if you ask a lot of Republicans, they are down to change it (mostly because the demographics in the swing states make it hard for them to win).

 

[teruterubozu]

I don't know. Are you? It certainly seems that way.

If saying that voting third party is throwing your vote away, and helping Donald Trump win the presidency is 'shaming'... Well, I'm not sorry. Think what you will.

Nah, just posting. Nothing wrong with a spirited back-and-forth. It's why I come here.

 

[Maxim726X]

Nah, just posting. Nothing wrong with a spirited back-and-forth. It's why I come here.

Fair enough.

 

[kirblar]

agreement from both sides

This is the crux of the illusion. So many arguing for 3rd parties think that there's a secret majority of people out there that agree w/ all their stances. But that's not how things work.

 

[gutter_trash]

Keep it a topic after the year 2000 for one. It has been 16 years and during that time and Dems had a majority in 2008.

Of course, this requires an amendment for the Constitution and agreement from both sides. Which, if you ask a lot of Republicans, they are down to change it (mostly because the demographics in the swing states make it hard for them to win).

You make no sense.
Why would a partisan political party want to empower the opposition?

 

[sphagnum]

You shouldn't have to be concerned with the benefit of the workers.

That sure would be a nice thing, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, it will never be the case under capitalism that I will not have to be concerned with the benefit of the workers. Of which I am one. So I have a particular interest.

 

[collige]

You make no sense.
Why would a partisan political party want to empower the opposition?

Because it's the right thing to do?

 

[Maxim726X]

Because it's the right thing to do?

Okay, then when Donald Trump wins the presidency because you 'wanted to do the right thing'... Was it worth it?

 

[gutter_trash]

Because it's the right thing to do?

First, solve the gerrymandering problem of redistricting

 

[B4s5C]

You make no sense.
Why would a partisan political party want to empower the opposition?

What?

I am advocating for a fairer voting system. There shouldn't be such a thing as a swing state. Every vote should count equally, regardless of the state you reside in.

Are you saying the Dem's who got screwed by this system in 2000, shouldn't want to change it because now its in their favor and that's okay?