Support NeoGAF

[Vigilant Walrus]

take it from someone intimately familiar with canadian politics (where two major instances of vote-splitting along this line resulted in 10-year runs by Chretien's Liberals followed by Harper's Conservatives): protest voting has literally always signaled the exact opposite of this. they will think they're better served appealing to the other side's voters and will course-correct in that direction. every single time.

In the grand scheme of things in the history of the world, protest voting has achieved a lot. Bernie Sanders himself is a protest candidate. And one who just got his 80% of his agenda embraced by a platform he is not natively part of.
When it comes to feminist rights, rights for the poor, rights for immigrants, many a times throughout history have protest voters who have been crucial for the establishment parties to win the election, have been catered to. As an act of desperation. Nobody wants to conceed to unpopular minority nonrepresented voices unless they have to.


It makes perfect sense Hillary and the democratic platform as a whole don't want to go further left. They did all this shit, and they still won't fucking shit up about fracking or TPP or Israel.

But that's the way it is. That's the way it is all over. Either, Hillary endorses their agenda, or she doesn't. There is no such thing as unity, because the Democratic party encompasses a wide array of political ideologies that fight inwardly. Another argument against two party systems.

Hillary can't both embrace the ultra liberal agenda and the centerist vote. But that is of no concern to either. Either she distances herself from Israeli defense policy or she is no friend of Israel. There is no room for interpretation there. Either way, one side wins. These protest voters think they can make Hillary endorse these issues, and then they will endorse her.
Politics is a hype game. It's a game of being perceived powerful. And when you are, the establishment cannot ignore you- Or it can, but there will be hell to pay.
Like in 2000, when 250,000 registered democrats said fuck Gore and voted for Bush in Florida.



Hillary has a credibility problem, and there is a base of liberals who feels she is faux liberal.

 

[Jonm1010]

I guess I'm just most depressed that I see people on the right say the same stuff as people on the far left about the democratic party right now. Strange bedfellows. Nauseating bedfellows. :\

I think frustration with the political system is something that is bi-partisan. The reaction to it, however, is not.

Which to me is always the danger in those that have the mind to think "Burn it down through whatever means and through the ashes we will rise a better nation."

 

[Zornack]

Yeah. Maybe they're seeing something I'm not?

So should I just assume that you're against a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, campaign finance reform, progressive taxes and freedom of religion?

 

[Adaren]

I am not going to mince words today, I'm going to make this clear. Voting is the most selfless, humanitarian thing you can do. In your hands you have the power to change the course of history for the nation, the world, and the billions of lives that live in it. When voting, you should not think what is best for you, what the candidate can do for you, you should think what's best for the country, what's best for everyone. This includes the minority of Americans who sadly have their lives in the hands of the majority. To do otherwise is selfish and careless.

This election, you have two choices, and not selecting one of them is still making a choice.

On the Democrats, you have the most progressive platform in its history, the candidate and her VP pick is even more left to that of the current President and Vice President. At the worse, you will get 4 to 8 more years of the current status of the nation with some more minor progression, at best, a better nation for future generations. Either way, this candidate will likely not cause the damage to our international allies, to our country, to our economy, and to the minorities in America. In the end, we get one major bonus, likely 3 new liberal Supreme Court Justices, if not more, that will likely prevent any harmful laws to be passed by the GOP for the next few decades.

On the Republicans, you have an extremely regressive platform that calls for the rewriting of "over-exaggerated" minority history, gender segregation laws, state funded conversion torture, the removal of civil rights such as abortion rights and same sex marriage, and we have so much more bigoted and harmful policies. Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe. Carrying with him is a wave of alt-right ideology and fascism. His wording and his way of order is that of dictators like Mussolini and Antonio Salazar (Which my family is getting heavy flashbacks after his speech). If elected, the Supreme Court will be filled with conservative judges for decades to come, which will halt progress for minorities and women for likely half of the century. Another thing is that the entire federal government will be under the control of the this party; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Internationally, we'll likely have a weaken NATO, South Korea, and Japan, leaving them open to the threat of Russia, North Korea, and China.

These are your two choices, and only them. A third party is not realistic in this case, nor will it ever with our current FPTP system, electoral college, and 12th amendment. At best, you may get a three or four way tie, but that would just mean the House makes the final call. Since the House is dominated by the GOP, the winner is Trump automatically. If you are liberal, or anything left of center-right, not voting or voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump, because that vote could have been used to vote against him by voting for Clinton. One more vote for Clinton, means you're increase her chance to win against Trump. If you're right wing and not voting for Trump, that means you're voting for Clinton and increasing her chances of winning by removing one vote that could have been used for Trump. That's the reality of the way things work in the United State's voting system.

Now, you only have two options, one that will lead to the same or better, the other leading to hate reigning supreme and decline. Make your choice, because this election is not like any other and this may be the turning point in human history if the leader of the free world is a literal fascist. We have the power in our hands to stop that from ever happening, and so it is with great courage that I ask Bernie or Bust supports with the famous words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need to prevent Trump from ever touching the white house, that's what we can do for our country, for what it stands for, and since Clinton is the only clear path to prevent Trump, we may criticize her, we may push her to the left, we may hold her feet to the fire to make sure she sticks to her progressive policies, but in the end, we must get her in that house in order to stop Trump.

Great post. Deserves to be near the top of a page.

 

[HK-47]

I think frustration with the political system is something that is bi-partisan. The reaction to it, however, is not.

Which to me is always the danger in those that have the mind to think "Burn it down through whatever means and through the ashes we will rise a better nation."

Hilarious considering the phoenix is a myth.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Any pictures of this rally?

 

[Crossing Eden]

I am not going to mince words today, I'm going to make this clear. Voting is the most selfless, humanitarian thing you can do. In your hands you have the power to change the course of history for the nation, the world, and the billions of lives that live in it. When voting, you should not think what is best for you, what the candidate can do for you, you should think what's best for the country, what's best for everyone. This includes the minority of Americans who sadly have their lives in the hands of the majority. To do otherwise is selfish and careless.

This election, you have two choices, and not selecting one of them is still making a choice.

On the Democrats, you have the most progressive platform in its history, the candidate and her VP pick is even more left to that of the current President and Vice President. At the worse, you will get 4 to 8 more years of the current status of the nation with some more minor progression, at best, a better nation for future generations. Either way, this candidate will likely not cause the damage to our international allies, to our country, to our economy, and to the minorities in America. In the end, we get one major bonus, likely 3 new liberal Supreme Court Justices, if not more, that will likely prevent any harmful laws to be passed by the GOP for the next few decades.

On the Republicans, you have an extremely regressive platform that calls for the rewriting of "over-exaggerated" minority history, gender segregation laws, state funded conversion torture, the removal of civil rights such as abortion rights and same sex marriage, and we have so much more bigoted and harmful policies. Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe. Carrying with him is a wave of alt-right ideology and fascism. His wording and his way of order is that of dictators like Mussolini and Antonio Salazar (Which my family is getting heavy flashbacks after his speech). If elected, the Supreme Court will be filled with conservative judges for decades to come, which will halt progress for minorities and women for likely half of the century. Another thing is that the entire federal government will be under the control of the this party; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Internationally, we'll likely have a weaken NATO, South Korea, and Japan, leaving them open to the threat of Russia, North Korea, and China.

These are your two choices, and only them. A third party is not realistic in this case, nor will it ever with our current FPTP system, electoral college, and 12th amendment. At best, you may get a three or four way tie, but that would just mean the House makes the final call. Since the House is dominated by the GOP, the winner is Trump automatically. If you are liberal, or anything left of center-right, not voting or voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump, because that vote could have been used to vote against him by voting for Clinton. One more vote for Clinton, means you're increase her chance to win against Trump. If you're right wing and not voting for Trump, that means you're voting for Clinton and increasing her chances of winning by removing one vote that could have been used for Trump. That's the reality of the way things work in the United State's voting system.

Now, you only have two options, one that will lead to the same or better, the other leading to hate reigning supreme and decline. Make your choice, because this election is not like any other and this may be the turning point in human history if the leader of the free world is a literal fascist. We have the power in our hands to stop that from ever happening, and so it is with great courage that I ask Bernie or Bust supports with the famous words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need to prevent Trump from ever touching the white house, that's what we can do for our country, for what it stands for, and since Clinton is the only clear path to prevent Trump, we may criticize her, we may push her to the left, we may hold her feet to the fire to make sure she sticks to her progressive policies, but in the end, we must get her in that house in order to stop Trump.

Fucking thank you.

 

[Jonm1010]

In the grand scheme of things in the history of the world, protest voting has achieved a lot. Bernie Sanders himself is a protest candidate. And one who just got his 80% of his agenda embraced by a platform he is not natively part of.
When it comes to feminist rights, rights for the poor, rights for immigrants, many a times throughout history have protest voters who have been crucial for the establishment parties to win the election, have been catered to. As an act of desperation. Nobody wants to conceed to unpopular minority nonrepresented voices unless they have to.


It makes perfect sense Hillary and the democratic platform as a whole don't want to go further left. They did all this shit, and they still won't fucking shit up about fracking or TPP or Israel.

But that's the way it is. That's the way it is all over. Either, Hillary endorses their agenda, or she doesn't. There is no such thing as unity, because the Democratic party encompasses a wide array of political ideologies that fight inwardly. Another argument against two party systems.

Hillary can't both embrace the ultra liberal agenda and the centerist vote. But that is of no concern to either. Either she distances herself from Israeli defense policy or she is no friend of Israel. There is no room for interpretation there. Either way, one side wins. These protest voters think they can make Hillary endorse these issues, and then they will endorse her.
Politics is a hype game. It's a game of being perceived powerful. And when you are, the establishment cannot ignore you- Or it can, but there will be hell to pay.
Like in 2000, when 250,000 registered democrats said fuck Gore and voted for Bush in Florida.



Hillary has a credibility problem, and there is a base of liberals who feels she is faux liberal.

You know when protest voting means something? When it is a sustained grassroots campaign and balances various forces inside and outside the system to leverage movement towards change.

Just sitting on your hands at election time and talking a big game on message boards doesn't solve shit. In fact it can often be counter-productive.

You don't start and end a protest at the presidential election but that is what I am gathering from a lot of the "abstainers" in this thread.

But I asked before, please walk me through point for point what a protest vote this election will accomplish? What is the bullet point strategy?

 

[nilbog21]

Great post. Deserves to be near the top of a page.

well written post and all, but do you think mayeb a little one sided? "Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe" lol

 

[Doc Holliday]

I love people that use "establishment politician" as derogatory term. You mean the establishment that:

Helped my mom get health insurance for the first time in decades
helped bring down unemployment from 9% to 5%
Found Bin Laden
Has done wonders for LBGT rights

All this while being blocked at every turn by the party who now you want to help elect in the presidency.

Are things perfect? No
Is she a perfect candidate? No

But she's much better trump, and quite frankly better than Bernie imo.

 

[eBay Huckster]

In the grand scheme of things in the history of the world, protest voting has achieved a lot. Bernie Sanders himself is a protest candidate. And one who just got his 80% of his agenda embraced by a platform he is not natively part of.
When it comes to feminist rights, rights for the poor, rights for immigrants, many a times throughout history have protest voters who have been crucial for the establishment parties to win the election, have been catered to. As an act of desperation. Nobody wants to conceed to unpopular minority nonrepresented voices unless they have to.

And in every single one of those cases save Sanders, protest voting achieved something only during and after strong movements were organized at the multi-decade scale - not within the scope of a single quadrennial election cycle. That's the other side of the coin that has been my general argument for the past couple days in these threads: that I'm not convinced that the ground work for a large-scale organizing movement is actually going to be there with a lot of these people.

 

[Y2Kev]

well written post and all, but do you think mayeb a little one sided? "Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe" lol

If you want to put "racist white nationalist dictator wannabe" up against "dishonest establishment tool of financial interests" I'd still take Hillary

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I feel like people will look back at "Well, I'm not voting Trump but I'm also not voting Clinton cause I wanted Bernie" the same way Brits look back at "Well, I didn't think we'd actually leae, I just wanted to rebel!" people. If you don't vote Clinton, you are risiking Trump winning. And you could have done something to prevent that. I get it, you don't want to vote for somebody you don't like. Though you should consider what that might lead to. Better to have a shit democrat for four years than Trump, wouldn't you agree? At least think about it.

I have to vote for a kinda shit party since like 2000 cause it's the only way to keep the far-right party in Austria at least kinda in check. Not that it's gonna help next time, but I'd still rather vote the boring old-shitty-dudes party here than throwing my vote away and letting the fucking "Freedom Party" win.

 

[brainchild]

If you want to put "racist white nationalist dictator wannabe" up against "dishonest establishment tool of financial interests" I'd still take Hillary

That's exactly what I consider both candidates and yes, I'm still voting for Hillary.

 

[trembli0s]

The DNC put an eight foot high, four mile fence around the convention.

Did no one think about the optics on this?

 

[Kai Dracon]

well written post and all, but do you think mayeb a little one sided? "Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe" lol

Does the GOP literally have to clone Adolf Hitler and put him on the ticket before it's okay to just plain say they're peddling evil?

 

[UltimaPooh]

on health care, she's pledged to implement a public option and lower the age of eligibility for medicare

on financial sector reform, she's pledged to strengthen dodd-frank's regulatory schemes

on infrastructure, she's pledged to expand public transit & rural and poor access to broadband internet alongside a general increase of investment across the board

on voting access issues, she's pledged to repair the VRA and implement nationwide automatic voter registration

in general, on racial issues, she'd be a strong net positive if even 75% (the historical average of fulfilled campaign promises) of what's listed on her site gets implemented

she's not just magically going to turn her back and "forget" to implement these things just as much as president obama didn't. obstructionism is probably going to force compromises on some of these just as it did with him, but there is nothing intrinsic to clinton that is going to lead to a chretien-esque heel turn.

speaking of which.



take it from someone intimately familiar with canadian politics (where two major instances of vote-splitting along this line resulted in 10-year runs by Chretien's Liberals followed by Harper's Conservatives): protest voting has literally always signaled the exact opposite of this. they will think they're better served appealing to the other side's voters and will course-correct in that direction. every single time.

Wonderful post by the way. I wouldn't say you have me convinced all the way yet but there's a bunch of net positives in here.

I suppose what it really comes down to is whether or not I trust her follow through on it... but I suppose you have to do that with every candidate that comes along, you have to do a little bit of a leap of faith.

Regardless the amount of vitriol in this thread for people who wish to abstain or vote 3rd party is distressing. With all of the false equivalences to stating that they obviously want a Trump presidency because they aren't going with the rank and file.

As for the poster who wishes to know what state I am in. I am in Missouri, which has gone red the last few times.... but I think it's capable of going blue as well.

 

[pigeon]

And apparently it will forever remain so. I just find it incredibly scary when lunatics and corruption have embedded themselves so deeply in the political structure that the majority of the public will vote for the safe option no matter who it is or what they've done just to avoid disaster.

Obviously I count myself as one of those just so Trump doesn't win, but that's what makes it so pathetic.



There is no voting against your own interest when Donald Trump is the other option. That's the point, but I honestly wonder where we would be if someone like Romney was the GOP nominee this year instead. People tend to have different intentions when Fascism doesn't have a big chance of winning.

I mean, let me be clear. Even when it was clear Trump was the nominee, I was more or less fine with protest votes and third parties and whatever because ultimately I was pretty confident we would win. You can find my posts in various threads arguing against people trying to attack others for voting third party and defending Green Party votes as reasonable protests that are clearly understandable by the Democrats if you look.

That was before the RNC. It was before Trump made it explicitly clear that the old GOP, of covert racism and religious pandering in service of tax cuts, was gone. The new GOP is a party of white nationalism and Trump is the fascist cherry on top of the deathcamp sundae. That is what the GOP has become.

If Romney were nominated, or even Jeb or whatever, then fine. If you wanted to vote Green I'd be like ugh, whatever. Romney is a jerk but he at least basically believes in stuff like democracy and equal rights, at some level.

This year is different.

 

[MHWilliams]

I mean, the truth is that your vote is morally important.

Your vote, combined with that of many others, will directly lead to one person becoming President of the United States. Your vote determines your representatives in government. And informed vote is a powerful thing.

The outcome of your vote decides the laws that are put into practice. This feeds in the economic status or our country and the civil rights of the people therein. It affects every level of government. It determines how our justice system works, which wars we fight, which government programs do and do not get cut. When the difference between a person's life and death is say, a single government program being funded or not, then your vote absolutely retains a ton of power.

Once again, voting is morally important, as long as that vote is informed.

Your vote effects the outcome of the election, which effects lives. It's not just your choice, which is the substantive part that many people miss. If you decide to go to the grocery store or not and which grocery store your choose, is a choice that effects you and you alone. (Unless you have children or other dependents.) But your vote on the other hand has wide-ranging implications upon the lives or your fellow citizens.

What is going on in this push and pull of this thread is that issue. Your contribution to the overall outcome of our government, in this case on a national scale. Your actions do matter and in aggregate can serve to place certain actors in positions of power. What others are trying to impress upon those who wish to abstain the vote or in this case, vote for Trump, is the ultimate outcome of that choice on the lives of the rest of the populace.

As an example, in North Carolina, the governor is Pat McCrory, who is fighting to keep HB2, the infamous bathroom bill, on the books. If you were a NC resident who was able to vote for another candidate, but abstained for whatever reason, the result of that action has a tangible effect. In this case, on the lives of transgender people in North Carolina.

The Presidency is that writ large.

You may not have a preferred candidate in the race at this point. That's understandable. You may want to vote third party, which some call a completely wasted vote, but assuming a third party wins a large enough percentage, it can be seen as a message to one of the reigning two parties.

But from a utilitarian point of view, the only thing that really matters from your actions is the consequences. And thus, people are asking, are you willing to lean in a personally-viable direction, knowing that the effect of that direction may be a presidency that can have a strong negative effect on the lives of your fellow citizens? Are you willing to attempt to send that message, knowing it may lead to a poorer outcome? What is your risk-reward equation?

It's a shared responsibility. If we vote for a candidate who will socially and economically take care of the majority of Americans, but who may also authorize continued drone strikes on foreign soil with a high civilian death toll, that is still our responsibility. The actions we took in the election will determine who gets to make those calls.

Where this meets a certain chunk of reality is in states that are clearly polling in certain directions. In those cases, you're more able to make a personally viable vote, because you can rely on a much larger certainty that the rest of your state will pick up the slack. You're relying on the rest to carry you for a decision that aligns with your moral compass. I caution that - because of situations like those who made protest votes in Brexit only to find they ended up on a winning side they didn't want to be on - but it's understandable.

But making voting decisions and then attempting to shirk the collective responsibility? That's not going to fly. What you ultimately do with that decision is up to you, but you cannot also hide from the potential condemnation of others who fear those outcomes. Stand strong in your convictions and realize others may call you a morally poor actor because of those choices. Others may look at your choice of priorities as poor, as shown in the thread where voting in economic self-interest may lead to poorer social outcomes for your fellow man.

 

[Meowster]

I am not going to mince words today, I'm going to make this clear. Voting is the most selfless, humanitarian thing you can do. In your hands you have the power to change the course of history for the nation, the world, and the billions of lives that live in it. When voting, you should not think what is best for you, what the candidate can do for you, you should think what's best for the country, what's best for everyone. This includes the minority of Americans who sadly have their lives in the hands of the majority. To do otherwise is selfish and careless.

This election, you have two choices, and not selecting one of them is still making a choice.

On the Democrats, you have the most progressive platform in its history, the candidate and her VP pick is even more left to that of the current President and Vice President. At the worse, you will get 4 to 8 more years of the current status of the nation with some more minor progression, at best, a better nation for future generations. Either way, this candidate will likely not cause the damage to our international allies, to our country, to our economy, and to the minorities in America. In the end, we get one major bonus, likely 3 new liberal Supreme Court Justices, if not more, that will likely prevent any harmful laws to be passed by the GOP for the next few decades.

On the Republicans, you have an extremely regressive platform that calls for the rewriting of "over-exaggerated" minority history, gender segregation laws, state funded conversion torture, the removal of civil rights such as abortion rights and same sex marriage, and we have so much more bigoted and harmful policies. Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe. Carrying with him is a wave of alt-right ideology and fascism. His wording and his way of order is that of dictators like Mussolini and Antonio Salazar (Which my family is getting heavy flashbacks after his speech). If elected, the Supreme Court will be filled with conservative judges for decades to come, which will halt progress for minorities and women for likely half of the century. Another thing is that the entire federal government will be under the control of the this party; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Internationally, we'll likely have a weaken NATO, South Korea, and Japan, leaving them open to the threat of Russia, North Korea, and China.

These are your two choices, and only them. A third party is not realistic in this case, nor will it ever with our current FPTP system, electoral college, and 12th amendment. At best, you may get a three or four way tie, but that would just mean the House makes the final call. Since the House is dominated by the GOP, the winner is Trump automatically. If you are liberal, or anything left of center-right, not voting or voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump, because that vote could have been used to vote against him by voting for Clinton. One more vote for Clinton, means you're increase her chance to win against Trump. If you're right wing and not voting for Trump, that means you're voting for Clinton and increasing her chances of winning by removing one vote that could have been used for Trump. That's the reality of the way things work in the United State's voting system.

Now, you only have two options, one that will lead to the same or better, the other leading to hate reigning supreme and decline. Make your choice, because this election is not like any other and this may be the turning point in human history if the leader of the free world is a literal fascist. We have the power in our hands to stop that from ever happening, and so it is with great courage that I ask Bernie or Bust supports with the famous words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need to prevent Trump from ever touching the white house, that's what we can do for our country, for what it stands for, and since Clinton is the only clear path to prevent Trump, we may criticize her, we may push her to the left, we may hold her feet to the fire to make sure she sticks to her progressive policies, but in the end, we must get her in that house in order to stop Trump.

Fantastic post.

 

[Jonm1010]

It's been this way for awhile.

If you are trying to use the lowest common denominator of a given candidates supporters to justify why you can't support said candidate, you really weren't genuinely considering it in the first place.

That sort of argument is never a primary driver and almost always used to reinforce already held positions.

 

[Melkezadek]

Wonderful post by the way. I wouldn't say you have me convinced all the way yet but there's a bunch of net positives in here.

I suppose what it really comes down to is whether or not I trust her follow through on it... but I suppose you have to do that with every candidate that comes along, you have to do a little bit of a leap of faith.

Just for clarity, before this post, you weren't aware of any of that already?

 

[cdyhybrid]

I guess I'm just most depressed that I see people on the right say the same stuff as people on the far left about the democratic party right now. Strange bedfellows. Nauseating bedfellows. :\

Politics is politics. The difference is that one party's politics produced a decent, although perhaps uninspiring, candidate while the other party's produced someone endorsed by the KKK and various other hate groups.

 

[ieptbarakat]

This article is something else. It basically says her quote is a lie in its description, but when you read it, you find out her quote (And the one you included in your post there) is actually accurate.



The article basically states that her statement is completely accurate. However its only accurate when considering 'per capita'. Which is true, but irrelevant because in her quote she did SAY per capita.

Ah, I understand now. I was upset because I believed she was falsely accusing my state with that claim but it was factually correct but just misleading. My bad.

 

[Plumbob]

I'm saying its disgusting behavior to fear-monger people into voting for their candidate.

it's not fear-mongering if you should legitimately be afraid.

 

[Christine]

well written post and all, but do you think mayeb a little one sided? "Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe" lol

Fair enough, nuance never hurts and it might not be strictly accurate to call the racist dictator wannabe a white nationalist. Better just to note that the racist dictator wannabe represents the greatest electoral hope of white nationalists in the last 50 years.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Just for clarity, before this post, you weren't aware of any of that already?

I would say that the public option was new to me, or I might have heard about it and maybe it was put to the wayside.

Also the outlining of her stances on the Frank-Dodd act.

 

[mike6467]

I'd love to see an apocalypse indicator before every election. Each party rates the opposing candidate on how likely their election would bring about the end of the world. It would be nice to compare scores years later

Either way I hope at some point in my lifetime people can actually vote for a third party without being told that this is a ONCE IN A LIFETIME catastrophic occurrence and it's not an option.

My friend was telling me about the Australian voting system, and how it alleviates some of this to a degree since it's preferential and allows ranking your picks. What are the downsides to such a system? Is there a good reason we don't do something similar?

 

[cdyhybrid]

Fair enough, nuance never hurts and it might not be strictly accurate to call the racist dictator wannabe a white nationalist. Better just to note that the racist dictator wannabe represents the greatest electoral hope of white nationalists in the last 50 years.

 

[Jonm1010]

As for the poster who wishes to know what state I am in. I am in Missouri, which has gone red the last few times.... but I think it's capable of going blue as well.

I don't, but if you do then you have a moral obligation to take a more serious look at the consequences of apathy or voting third party.

I am probably the longest sustained poster on this board when it comes to arguing UHC and I am very much on the bandwagon that systemic change to politics is above almost all else. Mostly because to accomplish a lot of the individual policy goals within the liberal platform the system needs to be more conducive toward it. With that said, protest voting a presidential election achieves nothing toward accomplishing that. If anything it works counter to it.

 

[Melkezadek]

I would say that the public option was new to me, or I might have heard about it and maybe it was put to the wayside.

Also the outlining of her stances on the Frank-Dodd act.

It just seems strange that someone who's so adamant on not voting for her wouldn't bother to do the research first before making a big decision like that.

Good on you for reading his post though.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Wonderful post by the way. I wouldn't say you have me convinced all the way yet but there's a bunch of net positives in here.

I suppose what it really comes down to is whether or not I trust her follow through on it... but I suppose you have to do that with every candidate that comes along, you have to do a little bit of a leap of faith.

Yeah, I should point out that even as a Clinton supporter I'm gonna do my damnedest to stump for these issues at all levels - beyond the fact that I don't expect her to deviate from the historical trend regarding Getting Shit Done, the fact of the matter is that organizing work is gonna have to be done to get 'em implemented even if the Dems are suddenly the Immortal Supermajority God Party for the next four years.

If you want to take that leap of faith? It's up to you, ultimately, but I implore you: at least consider that a Clinton presidency (with at least one Congressional chamber controlled by Dems, obviously) can be a force for good.

As for the poster who wishes to know what state I am in. I am in Missouri, which has gone red the last few times.... but I think it's capable of going blue as well.

That sounds about right - the consensus of political forecasts right now is that it's "likely" GOP, which means it's probably going red but can definitely flip if a lot of things go right for the Dems (and wrong for the GOP).

 

[cdyhybrid]

I would also suggest that anyone still on the fence about whether or not they can stomach voting for Hillary should pay very close attention to the DNC. Both Bernie and the President (among others) will be pointing out why they think people should be voting for her.

 

[UltimaPooh]

It just seems strange that someone who's so adamant on not voting for her wouldn't bother to do the research first before making a big decision like that.

Good on you for reading his post though.

Who said my decision was final? I have pointed out in this thread I was undecided... which means I was giving things time... between no and the election to learn more about her and whatever else.

Not to mention most of the debate is in defense of the idea of being able to abstain and that it shouldn't be met with such hostility. As Y2Kev pointed out and people continue to ignore.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

well written post and all, but do you think mayeb a little one sided? "Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe" lol

Like I said, I'm not mincing words today. When my family, white Catholic Portuguese American citizens, are having a panic attack over Trump because how his speech and the whole way the RNC went the past week heavily reminded them of Antonio Salazar, and reminded my father's mother of Mussolini, I'm calling him what I see him as. He is just that based on how he acts, what he says, what he promises, and what his party platform stands for.

 

[shem935]

Regardless the amount of vitriol in this thread for people who wish to abstain or vote 3rd party is distressing. With all of the false equivalences to stating that they obviously want a Trump presidency because they aren't going with the rank and file.

As for the poster who wishes to know what state I am in. I am in Missouri, which has gone red the last few times.... but I think it's capable of going blue as well.

Because people are scared. Honestly, I have lost sleep over this reading gaf and worrying about the election. It terrifies me what this could result in.

And it isn't just fear motivating us either. We see that policy platform and more outlined by Clinton as a realistic goal to strive for that will improve things around the country. For many she is everything they want in a candidate. Hard working, dedicated to a cause, and willing to withstand sustained political beatings for decades to try to make changes. It's very clear to those people and me that even if Trump weren't on the other end of the ticket she would be the obvious choice. Not even to mention SCOTUS which if she only got to appoint judges for that I would consider her presidency a huge success.

I'm sorry if attempted persuasions come off as grating or harsh, truly. Many are motivated by Trumps negatives and Clintons positives and the choice could not be more stark than it is.

 

[Jonm1010]

Who said my decision was final? I have pointed out in this thread I was undecided... which means I was giving things time... between no and the election to learn more about her and whatever else.

Not to mention most of the debate is in defense of the idea of being able to abstain and that it shouldn't be met with such hostility. As Y2Kev pointed out and people continue to ignore.

Im still waiting for one person crying about people being mean for pointing out the consequences of abstaining or third party voting to outline what their vote would achieve?

What purpose it serves and why this particular action will work toward that.

 

[Melkezadek]

Because people are scared. Honestly, I have lost sleep over this reading gaf and worrying about the election. It terrifies me what this could result in.

Yea no kidding. I'm actually having to go to therapy because of it. You would think TN wouldn't be as bad as the deeper parts of the South, but people are starting to become quite bold.

Several weeks ago me, my wife, and son were on a walk in our neighbor in the evening when a truck pulls up along side us. 3 dudes inside and they holler out "Fucking nigger and a nigger lover." They drove away but we literally ran home with my son in my arms, with my wife trailing behind me. With tragedy on the news every day, it wouldn't have surprised me if we became another story.

I only leave my house to go to work now. I don't go to the mall. When I have to go to the store I'm in and out. The thought of going to work and dealing with customers makes mw stomach churn.

This is the most stressful election I have ever participated in.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

You know when protest voting means something? When it is a sustained grassroots campaign and balances various forces inside and outside the system to leverage movement towards change.

Just sitting on your hands at election time and talking a big game on message boards doesn't solve shit. In fact it can often be counter-productive.

You don't start and end a protest at the presidential election but that is what I am gathering from a lot of the "abstainers" in this thread.

But I asked before, please walk me through point for point what a protest vote this election will accomplish? What is the bullet point strategy?

And in every single one of those cases save Sanders, protest voting achieved something only during and after strong movements were organized at the multi-decade scale - not within the scope of a single quadrennial election cycle. That's the other side of the coin that has been my general argument for the past couple days in these threads: that I'm not convinced that the ground work for a large-scale organizing movement is actually going to be there with a lot of these people.

Let me be clear mates;

I'm on record here being enthusiastic over the Democratic Platform embracing 80% of Sanders contentions. I think it was wonderful that he achieved so much, and I think they showed legit unity, leadership and progressive thinking.
I just wanted to defend protesting voting and single issue voting, because I feel there is a sense of bullying people here on GAF into voting for Hillary, and I don't think that is fair.
Voting is about sending a message and throwing your hat in the ring. Throwing your hat in the ring as a symbol ones right to have an opinion is not less because it is not popular. But least-worst-thinking bullies and shames people into a golden mead of thinking.
I believe in being pragmatic, but I also believe the world needs and have benefited greatly from people who stand true to their convictions against overwhelming popular opposition.

I cannot make assumptions about all of these protesters, third party voters and so on. It's too much to generalize all the reasons why they might have- But looking at these people with signs about TPP, foreign policy and fracking, makes me think that these protesters or single or various issue voters, who just want Hillary to endorse their agenda. Those people just hope Hillary will say "ahh what the heck! I never liked fracking anyway".
You and me will probably say that Hillary also has to pander to many millions of Americans who are centerist, and many of those have other ideas, and therefore she can't do it. But I don't think these protesters are bad or counter productive for sticking their guns. Unfortunately for them I don't think they will matter.
85% of Bernie supporters are on Clinton, and so is he. And so is Warren. Noam Chomsky is too. I cannot think of many distinguished Liberal high minded voices who aren't. So this group of people are without a voice. I don't think they are bad people at all.



I'd vote for Hillary, and I think all people who care about Bernie should vote for him, because he got 80% of his platform absorbed. These people represent the 20% of things he didn't get through, and they hope that by squeezing the lemon and making her sweat a bit, she will come around. I think for a segment of these protesters they would come around, though some just have to much hate in their hearts and will never come around for Hillary because they think politics is about individuals and not policies.
Single issue voters can be powerful. Third party candidates can come in and change things like George Wallace during the 60s with the whole "segregation forever" that had massive consequences. They are not to be taken lightly or thought off as a waste. Your vote is an opinion. An opinion is not worth more or less with regards to how popular or unpopular it is to ever be realized.
But a vote for Trump? I too believe that a vote for Trump is a vote for evil. I don't think you're a white nationalist or a racist just because you vote for Trump, but I do think you are partaking in the formation of a racist institutions. You are lending your voice and endorsement. Racist is a loaded word and people might have their reasons, but if I said I voted for Adolf Hitler because he loved animals and cared about them very much, am I still not partaking in evil? I might disagree with everything evil he does, and my only support for him is due to his love for animals. Intentions matter to the judgment of the self, but there is a stop block when it is going to physically hurt other people.
Donald Trump giving nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia would be the most dangerous crisis to the world since the cuban missile crisis. It's a monarchy of countless atrocities.

 

[eBay Huckster]

looks like we're generally on the same boat here, then. i agree that protest voting can hold power, though also that doing so here in particular is pretty dangerously irresponsible (particularly given that the clinton/dem platform is generally very good), and i'm probably not gonna directly call someone a fascist-enabler (unless they're in the "Voting for the Lulz" camp, which is my 20%)

but i am gonna be very suspicious of someone saying they're gonna directly protest vote for Trump.

 

[The Llama]

The DNC put an eight foot high, four mile fence around the convention.

Did no one think about the optics on this?

It is, I believe, the exact same fence as was used when the Pope came.

 

[Jonm1010]

Let me be clear mates;

I'm on record here being enthusiastic over the Democratic Platform embracing 80% of Sanders contentions. I think it was wonderful that he achieved so much, and I think they showed legit unity, leadership and progressive thinking.
I just wanted to defend protesting voting and single issue voting, because I feel there is a sense of bullying people here on GAF into voting for Hillary, and I don't think that is fair.
Voting is about sending a message and throwing your hat in the ring. Throwing your hat in the ring as a symbol ones right to have an opinion is not less because it is not popular. But least-worst-thinking bullies and shames people into a golden mead of thinking.
I believe in being pragmatic, but I also believe the world needs and have benefited greatly from people who stand true to their convictions against overwhelming popular opposition.

I cannot make assumptions about all of these protesters, third party voters and so on. It's too much to generalize all the reasons why they might have- But looking at these people with signs about TPP, foreign policy and fracking, makes me think that these protesters or single or various issue voters, who just want Hillary to endorse their agenda. Those people just hope Hillary will say "ahh what the heck! I never liked fracking anyway".
You and me will probably say that Hillary also has to pander to many millions of Americans who are centerist, and many of those have other ideas, and therefore she can't do it. But I don't think these protesters are bad or counter productive for sticking their guns. Unfortunately for them I don't think they will matter.
85% of Bernie supporters are on Clinton, and so is he. And so is Warren. Noam Chomsky is too. I cannot think of many distinguished Liberal high minded voices who aren't. So this group of people are without a voice. I don't think they are bad people at all.



I'd vote for Hillary, and I think all people who care about Bernie should vote for him, because he got 80% of his platform absorbed. These people represent the 20% of things he didn't get through, and they hope that by squeezing the lemon and making her sweat a bit, she will come around. I think for a segment of these protesters they would come around, though some just have to much hate in their hearts and will never come around for Hillary because they think politics is about individuals and not policies.
Single issue voters can be powerful. Third party candidates can come in and change things like George Wallace during the 60s with the whole "segregation forever" that had massive consequences. They are not to be taken lightly or thought off as a waste. Your vote is an opinion. An opinion is not worth more or less with regards to how popular or unpopular it is to ever be realized.
But a vote for Trump? I too believe that a vote for Trump is a vote for evil. I don't think you're a white nationalist or a racist just because you vote for Trump, but I do think you are partaking in the formation of a racist institutions. You are lending your voice and endorsement. Racist is a loaded word and people might have their reasons, but if I said I voted for Adolf Hitler because he loved animals and cared about them very much, am I still not partaking in evil? I might disagree with everything evil he does, and my only support for him is due to his love for animals. Intentions matter to the judgment of the self, but there is a stop block when it is going to physically hurt other people.
Donald Trump giving nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia would be the most dangerous crisis to the world since the cuban missile crisis. It's a monarchy of countless atrocities.

You are conflating long, sustained(often spanning decades), grassroots movements that spread roots through various institutions(along with creating new ones) using a multitude of strategies to people abstaining from a presidential vote in an important election where they are being told in detail the consequences for doing so and are unable to articulate any sort of clear or concise rational for why and how it will be the best use of their voting power.

I get what you are saying largely, but there just isn't much ground the people in this thread have provided that they can stand on.

 

[TwoDurans]

They're planning to eat beans and fart at the convention? And we're supposed to take this "movement" (pun absolutely intended) seriously?

Hey Berniebros, act like children get treated like children.

 

[Ponn]

Im still waiting for one person crying about people being mean for pointing out the consequences of abstaining or third party voting to outline what their vote would achieve?

What purpose it serves and why this particular action will work toward that.

Maybe because people do take their vote seriously. Maybe they haven't given into the cynicism of politics of voting for the lesser of two evils or voting just to stop someone from getting in office. Maybe people do expect more from their politicians and want to vote to send a message. This is an election season that saw someone make it to the general election who everyone laughed at and said had absolutely no chance. You saw the same on the other side and someone who almost beat out the assumed winner. It gets really hard to keep buying the defeatist rhetoric of "stop wasting your vote'. when we keep seeing instances of that not only in Presidential elections but local as well. As people continue to get more and more fed up with the status quo, when minorities get fed up with broken promises and politicians riding to office on their votes and then doing their own thing when they get there its going to become even more apparent. The power of a persons vote is the same as it ever was, a message of what someone wants out of a politician. The real reason this election cycle has been so crazy and people are freaking out all over the board is because they are feeling that status quo changing in both camps.

 

[Plumbob]

Voting is not just speech. It's a decision-making vehicle.

 

[FStubbs]

I am not going to mince words today, I'm going to make this clear. Voting is the most selfless, humanitarian thing you can do. In your hands you have the power to change the course of history for the nation, the world, and the billions of lives that live in it. When voting, you should not think what is best for you, what the candidate can do for you, you should think what's best for the country, what's best for everyone. This includes the minority of Americans who sadly have their lives in the hands of the majority. To do otherwise is selfish and careless.

This election, you have two choices, and not selecting one of them is still making a choice.

On the Democrats, you have the most progressive platform in its history, the candidate and her VP pick is even more left to that of the current President and Vice President. At the worse, you will get 4 to 8 more years of the current status of the nation with some more minor progression, at best, a better nation for future generations. Either way, this candidate will likely not cause the damage to our international allies, to our country, to our economy, and to the minorities in America. In the end, we get one major bonus, likely 3 new liberal Supreme Court Justices, if not more, that will likely prevent any harmful laws to be passed by the GOP for the next few decades.

On the Republicans, you have an extremely regressive platform that calls for the rewriting of "over-exaggerated" minority history, gender segregation laws, state funded conversion torture, the removal of civil rights such as abortion rights and same sex marriage, and we have so much more bigoted and harmful policies. Their candidate is a racist white nationalist dictator wannabe. Carrying with him is a wave of alt-right ideology and fascism. His wording and his way of order is that of dictators like Mussolini and Antonio Salazar (Which my family is getting heavy flashbacks after his speech). If elected, the Supreme Court will be filled with conservative judges for decades to come, which will halt progress for minorities and women for likely half of the century. Another thing is that the entire federal government will be under the control of the this party; Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Internationally, we'll likely have a weaken NATO, South Korea, and Japan, leaving them open to the threat of Russia, North Korea, and China.

These are your two choices, and only them. A third party is not realistic in this case, nor will it ever with our current FPTP system, electoral college, and 12th amendment. At best, you may get a three or four way tie, but that would just mean the House makes the final call. Since the House is dominated by the GOP, the winner is Trump automatically. If you are liberal, or anything left of center-right, not voting or voting for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump, because that vote could have been used to vote against him by voting for Clinton. One more vote for Clinton, means you're increase her chance to win against Trump. If you're right wing and not voting for Trump, that means you're voting for Clinton and increasing her chances of winning by removing one vote that could have been used for Trump. That's the reality of the way things work in the United State's voting system.

Now, you only have two options, one that will lead to the same or better, the other leading to hate reigning supreme and decline. Make your choice, because this election is not like any other and this may be the turning point in human history if the leader of the free world is a literal fascist. We have the power in our hands to stop that from ever happening, and so it is with great courage that I ask Bernie or Bust supports with the famous words of JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need to prevent Trump from ever touching the white house, that's what we can do for our country, for what it stands for, and since Clinton is the only clear path to prevent Trump, we may criticize her, we may push her to the left, we may hold her feet to the fire to make sure she sticks to her progressive policies, but in the end, we must get her in that house in order to stop Trump.

This. This is what it's all about and the Bernie or Bust folks need to see this.

EDIT: Nobody is bullying anybody into voting for Hillary. It is simply being pointed out, over and over again, that NOT voting for Hillary is functionally the SAME as voting for Trump. No matter how much people may feel their "protest vote" for Jill Stein or sitting out means something.

 

[Velcro Fly]

the vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump is only true in a few states

i live in Indiana and I see a few people on my facebook talking about voting Gary Johnson and I'm like yeah it doesn't matter Hillary is not winning here anyway.

If you are Ohio/Pennsylvania/Florida though it matters

 

[tebunker]

I mean, the truth is that your vote is morally important.

Your vote, combined with that of many others, will directly lead to one person becoming President of the United States. Your vote determines your representatives in government. And informed vote is a powerful thing.

The outcome of your vote decides the laws that are put into practice. This feeds in the economic status or our country and the civil rights of the people therein. It affects every level of government. It determines how our justice system works, which wars we fight, which government programs do and do not get cut. When the difference between a person's life and death is say, a single government program being funded or not, then your vote absolutely retains a ton of power.

Once again, voting is morally important, as long as that vote is informed.

Your vote effects the outcome of the election, which effects lives. It's not just your choice, which is the substantive part that many people miss. If you decide to go to the grocery store or not and which grocery store your choose, is a choice that effects you and you alone. (Unless you have children or other dependents.) But your vote on the other hand has wide-ranging implications upon the lives or your fellow citizens.

What is going on in this push and pull of this thread is that issue. Your contribution to the overall outcome of our government, in this case on a national scale. Your actions do matter and in aggregate can serve to place certain actors in positions of power. What others are trying to impress upon those who wish to abstain the vote or in this case, vote for Trump, is the ultimate outcome of that choice on the lives of the rest of the populace.

As an example, in North Carolina, the governor is Pat McCrory, who is fighting to keep HB2, the infamous bathroom bill, on the books. If you were a NC resident who was able to vote for another candidate, but abstained for whatever reason, the result of that action has a tangible effect. In this case, on the lives of transgender people in North Carolina.

The Presidency is that writ large.

You may not have a preferred candidate in the race at this point. That's understandable. You may want to vote third party, which some call a completely wasted vote, but assuming a third party wins a large enough percentage, it can be seen as a message to one of the reigning two parties.

But from a utilitarian point of view, the only thing that really matters from your actions is the consequences. And thus, people are asking, are you willing to lean in a personally-viable direction, knowing that the effect of that direction may be a presidency that can have a strong negative effect on the lives of your fellow citizens? Are you willing to attempt to send that message, knowing it may lead to a poorer outcome? What is your risk-reward equation?

It's a shared responsibility. If we vote for a candidate who will socially and economically take care of the majority of Americans, but who may also authorize continued drone strikes on foreign soil with a high civilian death toll, that is still our responsibility. The actions we took in the election will determine who gets to make those calls.

Where this meets a certain chunk of reality is in states that are clearly polling in certain directions. In those cases, you're more able to make a personally viable vote, because you can rely on a much larger certainty that the rest of your state will pick up the slack. You're relying on the rest to carry you for a decision that aligns with your moral compass. I caution that - because of situations like those who made protest votes in Brexit only to find they ended up on a winning side they didn't want to be on - but it's understandable.

But making voting decisions and then attempting to shirk the collective responsibility? That's not going to fly. What you ultimately do with that decision is up to you, but you cannot also hide from the potential condemnation of others who fear those outcomes. Stand strong in your convictions and realize others may call you a morally poor actor because of those choices. Others may look at your choice of priorities as poor, as shown in the thread where voting in economic self-interest may lead to poorer social outcomes for your fellow man.

Thanks for this Mike. Love it. Might need to crib it for my discussions with friends.

Very wel reasoned and explained and thought out. Truly appreciate it.

 

[metalslimer]

the vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump is only true in a few states

i live in Indiana and I see a few people on my facebook talking about voting Gary Johnson and I'm like yeah it doesn't matter Hillary is not winning here anyway.

If you are Ohio/Pennsylvania/Florida though it matters

Indiana went blue in 2008. It's most likely not happening again anytime soon but that's not going to happen if you think there's no chance whatsoever. Also I'm sort of interested in people on the left going for Gary Johnson when he is so Mich farther right than Clinton on pretty much every issue besides weed

 

[Ponn]

EDIT: Nobody is bullying anybody into voting for Hillary.

Bullshit. It's bullying, especially when you start labeling people as bigots just for not voting Hillary.