Support NeoGAF

[Aceshighhhh]

When we're talking about president of the United States, in my own personal view, this is not time for a protest vote.

Isn't this said every election cycle? Next time we'll give third parties a chance!

 

[Blader]

Isn't this said every election cycle? Next time we'll give third parties a chance!

Probably because protest votes in every presidential election are worthless.

If you want to give third parties a chance, put in the work between elections.

 

[benjipwns]

You're adorable when you have no leg to stand on.

Who elects said senators that will decide to vote in favor of Justices I speak of? It's the people that perform that act you call so unimportant.

Not a single voter.

 

[KimiNewt]

The worst thing about western 'democracy' is that the winner takes it all. It makes people vote on who will likely be a winner rather than their personal best option.

Proportional voting helps but does not eliminate this flaw/feature.

That's really isn't true for the many representative democracies of the world.

 

[phanphare]

the youngins they love him:

judging from this thread I'm the only one who saw this and immediately thought, "good. fuck jill stein. loony."

 

[Aceshighhhh]

Probably because protest votes in every presidential election are worthless.

If you want to give third parties a chance, put in the work between elections.

This type of thinking is the reason they don't get a chance. There's no reason you can't put in the work for both cases

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Not a single voter.

Every vote counts, (especially in an election like this) but sure, let's listen to people like you that call it unimportant.

No thanks.

 

[Diablos]

By Election Day Stein won't impact anything. It's Johnson that is really swallowing up a big chunk of the youth vote.

Hillary possibly losing because Bernie didn't "lose the nice way" narrative again? Bernie killed his own campaign by being vague on how he would approach getting any of his policies pushed. It doesn't matter as Hillary laid out a more concise and coherent plan.

If Trump manages to snatch a W from her then we have to look back and see what she did to lose footing to someone like Trump.

Yes obviously we would have to look at what Hillary did wrong. We have ideas as to what that would be but hopefully we won't actually have to do that because I want her to win. In regards to Bernie I'm not fully blaming anything on him, simply stating that the primary process, and being dragged out for far too long by Senator Sanders, really capitalized on a lot of the dislike that many young voters have for more "establishment candidates" like Hillary. The longer that thing went on, the more energized they became. It gets harder to bring those voters into the fold. So many young voters are losing sight of what the implications of voting third party this year really means. Bernie had an opportunity to educate them about that during the primary but instead he kept going really negative on Hillary and used that energize his base into rabidly supporting a campaign that could never win the Dem primary even on its best days.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

This type of thinking is the reason they don't get a chance. There's no reason you can't put in the work for both cases

Show me a situation in American history where a third party presidential campaign actually changed the direction of a major political party

 

[dramatis]

Complaining Sanders is the one responsible for the fact that Hillary has a bad name when it comes to things like being friendly to the bank that is more like a Mafia group that without the honour (Goldman Sachs). If you want citations go do a Google search on 'Clinton Goldman sachs' and choose to your liking. What my problem with you is that instead of owning up to it that yes it is a flaw Hilary has you continue to turn a blind eye. I mean, it's OK to be economically centrist and not care but don't act like you secretly do care but that the accusations are unfounded. As if it isn't the case but that you would care if it was. You wouldn't. You don't care.

This is the Rudy Giuliani argument for why conspiracy theories are legitimate. If you would like to join that circle of fire you are welcome to do so.

I'd refrain from saying people are playing the victim Aaron, your posts in the primaries are open to see for everyone. You are somebody who will blame a Clinton loss on others that for example point out at the pro corporate stances of Hillary. You're doing it in this thread even.

Also, I don't think you're in any position to chat about what other people were posting during the primaries when you justified the cheating access of Hillary's campaign data by the Sanders campaign:

I don't even care if it was malicious or not, fuck Hilary and her corporate campaign. Within reason the goal justifies the methods to stop her nomination. This might end up badly though looking at the fact that people in general care more about drama than the improvements of their own lives.

European guys on this forum sure seem to have a hard on for hating Hillary Clinton. When did the Netherlands have a female prime minister?

 

[Aceshighhhh]

Show me a situation in American history where a third party presidential campaign actually changed the direction of a major political party

Uhh...Lincoln and the Republican party? And the Whigs being wiped out after Fillmore.

And again, I don't see how this sort of thinking does anything but silence public discourse

 

[tanooki27]

the youngins they love him:

it's bizarre, because his fiscal policy is so opposed to Sanders'

 

[benjipwns]

Every vote counts, (especially in an election like this) but sure, let's listen to people like you that call it unimportant.

No thanks.

No, it doesn't.

Take your vote. Remove it. The outcome will the same as if we counted it.

Take your vote. Change it, to any candidate. The outcome will be the same as if it was how you voted initially.

You voting has no impact on anyone else's vote and is statistically insignificant.

Now add in the fact that we aren't holding a single election but 51 elections for the Presidency and 33/34 for the Senate and you only get to vote in one of the former and potentially one of the latter. With the collective results of the first set of 51 elections determining the outcome of the Presidential race. Also, the electors aren't required to be faithful.

There's nothing wrong with voting. Do whatever you want.

But it's silly to continue to pretend as if each and every vote is some kind of sacred powerful totem that is important and makes an impact.

Indeed that's one of the amusing things about the Hillary vote begging, they're both arguing that your vote is worthless so don't use it how you want and also that it's so powerful that you alone will determine the outcome and be to blame. And then they get upset when someone considers their vote to not be something to be thrown away on a candidate they don't support and don't wish to pick to soothe some lockstep party supporters fears of an outcome they can't control.

People should try not thinking they're the center of the universe and can impact an entrenched institution just because they're going to mark a single ballot that may or may not correctly guess the collective winner of 51 separate elections.

Voting for one candidate or another, not voting, no matter what a person does or doesn't do with a ballot, the outcome will be the same. Even the entire electorate of this thread voting is unlikely to even get noticed by our electoral process compared to if it didn't vote at all.

Show me a situation in American history where a third party presidential campaign actually changed the direction of a major political party

1848 effectively doomed the Whigs and the Free Soil Party's share likely decided the winner, 1856 established the GOP as the successor party in the north, 1860 crippled the Democratic Party for ages, 1892 led to William Jennings Bryan and his Democratic Party disasters, 1912 imported Progressivism into the Democratic Party no longer leaving it solely to the GOP continuing the war within the Party that Bryan started, 1968 sent the Republicans chasing the Wallace voter...and years later the Democrats doing the same.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Uhh...Lincoln and the Republican party? And the Whigs being wiped out after Fillmore.

And again, I don't see how this sort of thinking does anything but silence public discourse

The Republicans were not a third party, and you're talking about history from 150 years ago, when only a third of the population could vote and our country was mostly rural. It's an entirely different dynamic.

And you see "silence public discourse" and I see "providing receipts that your theory that third parties can make a difference in a presidential election is valid"

 

[Azerare]

Yes obviously we would have to look at what Hillary did wrong. We have ideas as to what that would be but hopefully we won't actually have to do that because I want her to win. In regards to Bernie I'm not fully blaming anything on him, simply stating that the primary process, and being dragged out for far too long by Senator Sanders, really capitalized on a lot of the dislike that many young voters have for more "establishment candidates" like Hillary. The longer that thing went on, the more energized they became. It gets harder to bring those voters into the fold. So many young voters are losing sight of what the implications of voting third party this year really means. Bernie had an opportunity to educate them about that during the primary but instead he kept going really negative on Hillary and used that energize his base into rabidly supporting a campaign that could never win the Dem primary even on its best days.

Agreed. Unfortunately it was a mixture of Berne using buzzwords and a bit of the voters interested in him not properly researching/getting full immersed in politics.

 

[benjipwns]

If Republicans weren't a third party what were they? After 1854 they were fourth in the House and third in the Senate. In 1856 they were only on half the ballots in the nation. And the American/Whigs still were running.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If Republicans weren't a third party what were they? After 1854 they were fourth in the House and third in the Senate. In 1856 they were only on half the ballots in the nation. And the American/Whigs still were running.

But had seats. They had worked from the bottom up and didn't just come out of the shadows every 4 years to try and win the presidency and then back to the shadows.

They created a new major party the "proper" way.

 

[Corto]

Holy shit. "Pick your poison." These people make Trump look like a decent human being.

This isn't a recent revelation. This is not something unique to 2016, her relation to Kissinger that is.

Kissinger is but one spectrum of foreign policy. There's also the neo-con pundits that have flocked to Hillary; Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. she has a track record of conforming to neo-conservative foreign policy. This should be a cause for concern for most democrats.

Seriously, there is more to politics than headlines and party platforms.

Edit-

It's cognitive dissonance at this point due to the boogeyman element of Trump.

I'll be back election night. This is too much.

As far as I remember Kristol never endorsed Hillary Clinton. Having to chose who he would prefer to win between her or Trump he prefers Hillary to win, but not with his endorsement.

 

[the-pi-guy]

Wow, Bernie, I wish you would've been more clear about this during the primary, stopping short of endorsing Hillary at that point obviously, educating your ridiculously engaged voter base at that time of the significance of what a protest vote can do to ultimately sink anything remotely progressive by indirectly aiding Donald Trump...

I thought he was pretty clear.

Even a month and a half before his endorsement, he made it (I thought fairly) clear that he would support Clinton. At the very least he implied it.
Though many people interpreted his comments about "Hillary needs to convince them" to be more along the lines of "F you Hillary, you'll have to take my supporters from me", even though in context it is far more clear that he's saying he'll do whatever he can and that Hillary needs to do what she can also.

No, it doesn't.

Take your vote. Remove it. The outcome will the same as if we counted it.

Take your vote. Change it, to any candidate. The outcome will be the same as if it was how you voted initially.

Any particular vote doesn't matter. But 1 or 10 million particular votes do matter.

 

[Diprosalic]

But had seats. They had worked from the bottom up and didn't just come out of the shadows every 4 years to try and win the presidency and then back to the shadows.

They created a new major party the "proper" way.

That's why i will never take the third parties serious.

 

[benjipwns]

But had seats. They had worked from the bottom up and didn't just come out of the shadows every 4 years to try and win the presidency and then back to the shadows.

They created a new major party the "proper" way.

That's why i will never take the third parties serious.

fuck, this ignorant nonsense yet again, lets just dig a post out even if imperfect:

Both parties run hundreds of candidates in every election. At every level you can think of. The Libertarians are running nearly 600 candidates for just federal and state legislative offices.

Ballot access is most easily obtained by running for President or Governor as automatic status (for all races downballot) are often determined by shares of the vote acquired at that level. You also only hear about the Presidential candidates for the same reason you aren't hearing about Republican and Democratic state house candidates unless they're Republican candidates who say dumb things.

Starting "at the bottom" doesn't accomplish anything when you would have to petition onto the ballot for every single race rather than running one candidate for President/Governor/Senate and getting on the ballot when they obtain 0.5% or whatever.

The most successful Libertarian and Greens have been those who have run in races that the Democrats or Republicans have abandoned. It doesn't matter because the incumbent still gets 80% of the vote. Even in these situations the R's and D's try to get "spoiler candidates" off the ballot.

Because of the rules and laws in place you have to basically be a self-funded millionaire to even compete in many down ballot races. Since few people care enough to do so they join the Republican or Democratic parties to get funded, have staff, voter lists, etc. provided for free. If they don't, they get attacked for their shadowy personal sources of wealth that they're trying to buy an election with.

At that point it's actually less restricting to run as an independent rather than under a party. At which point, except in select states, you can't coordinate or work with one of the third parties because election law hell will rain down upon you. (And you'll still have to fight off at least one of the parties, see how the Republicans tried to keep the dropped out Democrat on the ballot in Kansas, etc.)

Acquiring candidates for bottom of the ballot races isn't something that is just an issue for third parties. For example, on my ballot I will be able to vote for "not more than six" candidates for Parks Commission. The two major parties have managed to put four candidates combined on the ballot. All incumbents. If I spent $1000 or so to be registered and wrote myself in I could be a Parks Commissioner by default. (But I don't want the voting record used against me when I run for VP in 2020 with The Gilman.)

Recent examples of duopoly box-blockage here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1280214

Any particular vote doesn't matter. But 1 or 10 million particular votes do matter.

Cool, let me know when someone gets to cast a million or ten votes for one statewide office. Then we'll talk about that one exception's vote mattering. And how yours and mine still don't.

 

[JustenP88]

I guess if there's one silver lining to a Trump victory, it's that I'd have a chance to get lit and enjoy the HillGAF meltdown.

Not quite worth it but you've got to look for reasons to smile, I suppose.

 

[FiggyCal]

WIth the lead she currently has?

 

[Aceshighhhh]

The Republicans were not a third party.

The party was formed 6 years before Lincoln took office. It was by no stretch the equivalent of the party you see today

and you're talking about history from 150 years ago, when only a third of the population could vote and our country was mostly rural. It's an entirely different dynamic.

This doesn't really refute the prevalence of third parties. Electoral ecosystems will always be dynamic - what matters is if the people are properly represented and that the representatives have the capacity to take office (which currently most don't).

If anything, having only a small group in control would completely limit any sort of competition for office.

And you see "silence public discourse" and I see "providing receipts that your theory that third parties can make a difference in a presidential election is valid"

I already gave you two examples. You can look into the other six party representatives that were in office

But had seats. They had worked from the bottom up and didn't just come out of the shadows every 4 years to try and win the presidency and then back to the shadows.

They created a new major party the "proper" way.

The Green and Libertarian parties both have representatives that held major seats. Johnson and Weld were both governors and Stein has been politically active for decades. Far from "the shadows" lol

 

[Tigress]

I was, and still am, a Bernie supporter, but I won't be bringing myself to vote for Hilldawg.

She'll win, i'm confident in that. I don't even think I care enough to bring myself to the poll anymore. But if I do, i'll either go for Johnson or Stein. I was a life-long democrat, but this election put a pin in that aspect of my identity.

Well if trump wins and we get another conservative Supreme Court for another 30 years, we'll be sure to thank you for keeping the us under the insane party's thumb.

Also, how can you agree with democrats (you say you were a life long one) and vote for a libertarian? How in the world does a libertarian represent your views at all? And if you say it's a protest vote what good is a protest vote if you are voting for some one who doesn't even represent your views? Even if you think Hillary lies your vote shows you want those lies to be true if you vote for her. Voting for the libertarian says you want what he says to come true. So how does that do any good at all if you truly want democrat values?

I honestly can't believe anyone truly believes in liberal/democrat values if they are willing to vote for the total opposite side for whatever reason.

 

[draetenth]

Why do people think a protest vote will work anyway? Is there even any proof that a party would know why you are protesting?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

it's bizarre, because his fiscal policy is so opposed to Sanders'

because young people want anti-establishment, even though this is probably their first or second election they have been able to vote in, which kinda puts the entire "establishment" thing out the window.

 

[benjipwns]

Why do people think a protest vote will work anyway? Is there even any proof that a party would know why you are protesting?

No, of course not.

A protest vote is stupid because it implies that you're beholden to a party and want them to listen to you more that's all.

If you have twenty ballots and you vote Green once and Democratic all the other times, nobody will give a shit. You have to vote Green or Socialist or whatever constantly. And for those candidates in the Democratic primaries when they pop up. Until the Democratic Party changes. Which may be never.

Most people are too afraid of not having voted for the winner though that they come back to the fold. Even when the person is running unopposed.

 

[komarkaze]

Protest voters think they have the passion and fury of Rage Against the Machine, but they end up sounding like Limp Bizkit.

 

[ghostjoke]

Going to preface this with "I'm not American", so maybe I'm missing something but isn't this the perfect opportunity to get 3rd parties noticed? Neither of the main candidates are looked on with kind eyes. I don't see why you wouldn't be in the same situation in 4 to 8 years when the risk of the progress made by 12/16 years of democratic presidents could be pushed back with a republican presidency; and potentially without vilified (be it truth or slander) presidential nominees in the main parties.

It's bizarre to me that you're asking people who are fatigued with the two party system and want to upheave it to let their feelings sit on the sidelines for another 4 years (at least) when they will likely be in a far less powerful position (relatively) to make a dent. I don't see voting 3rd party as the most fruitful endeavour (however, almost all of that this cycle comes from my personal feelings that Trump should be nowhere near the White House) but the dismissive nature of these as nothing more than vote wasters/potential enablers seems pretty counter-productive to getting them on your side. And that's before you get into the supporters' passive-aggressive insults like "I'm not an idiot because I'm doing X". It's so transparent and self-defeating. If you want to call someone an idiot, just do it, don't dance around it, be honest.

Plus, if one of the 3rd parties get above a certain threshold (regardless of whether they will get the vote in the end), don't they get on the debates? which could make the coming debate shitshow somewhat redeemable.

Protest voters think they have the passion and fury of Rage Against the Machine, but they end up sounding like Limp Bizkit.

In fairness, the RATM Christmas no. 1 campaign just double-lined the pockets of Sony, which could be quite apt to this protest vote depending on how things go in November.

 

[WillyFive]

Going to preface this with "I'm not American", so maybe I'm missing something but isn't this the perfect opportunity to get 3rd parties noticed? Neither of the main candidates are looked on with kind eyes. I don't see why you wouldn't be in the same situation in 4 to 8 years when the risk of the progress made by 12/16 years of democratic presidents could be pushed back with a republican presidency; and potentially without vilified (be it truth or slander) presidential nominees in the main parties.

It's bizarre to me that you're asking people who are fatigued with the two party system and want to upheave it to let their feelings sit on the sidelines for another 4 years (at least) when they will likely be in a far less powerful position (relatively) to make a dent. I don't see voting 3rd party as the most fruitful endeavour (however, almost all of that this cycle comes from my personal feelings that Trump should be nowhere near the White House) but the dismissive nature of these as nothing more than vote wasters/potential enablers seems pretty counter-productive to getting them on your side. And that's before you get into the supporters' passive-aggressive insults like "I'm not an idiot because I'm doing X". It's so transparent and self-defeating. If you want to call someone an idiot, just do it, don't dance around it, be honest.

Plus, if one of the 3rd parties get above a certain threshold (regardless of whether they will get the vote in the end), don't they get on the debates? which could make the coming shitshow somewhat redeemable.
.

For this to work, both parties need to be equally dissatisfied and decide to go third party at the same time. If just Democrats decide to go 3rd party, Trump will win. If just Republicans decide to go 3rd party, Hillary will win. No one wants to take the first step because of this.

 

[jchap]

Count me among those who won't vote for either Clinton or Trump. Those two have too much stink on them to ever get my vote. I'll vote down the ticket.

 

[benjipwns]

Going to preface this with "I'm not American", so maybe I'm missing something but isn't this the perfect opportunity to get 3rd parties noticed? Neither of the main candidates are looked on with kind eyes. I don't see why you wouldn't be in the same situation in 4 to 8 years when the risk of the progress made by 12/16 years of democratic presidents could be pushed back with a republican presidency; and potentially without vilified (be it truth or slander) presidential nominees in the main parties.

Now you see why it is important to support The Party Forever even if they nominate a Hillary or Trump or McCain or Dole or Dukakis or Kerry or Mondale. If the other party wins, they will literally destroy everything and we will be set back to Year Zero. Just like the continuous hellscape we've had since Nixon with zero progress in every single avenue of life due to the resetting every four to eight years.

And if you think those times were different and we did survive, well, then the Democrats are more insane left-wing Marxist-Leninists and the Republicans more right-wing Bircher-Birthers than ever before! This time we can't afford it.

 

[Ekai]

He's been saying this since the beginning, more or less. The last thing he wanted to do was split the party vote, and concede the presidency to the GOP. It's why he ruled out a third party run from day one.

This.

I really don't see why this topic exists. It's not new news. Though with how vilified Bernie was by certain people I suppose it would be new to them.

Wow, Bernie, I wish you would've been more clear about this during the primary, stopping short of endorsing Hillary at that point obviously, educating your ridiculously engaged voter base at that time of the significance of what a protest vote can do to ultimately sink anything remotely progressive by indirectly aiding Donald Drumpf...

Instead, there were days where his quotes read like something from a Republican surrogate given how hard he was hitting Hillary. It's funny what happens to your ego when you come back down to earth.

He's been clear about this from the beginning....>_>

I guess if there's one silver lining to a Drumpf victory, it's that I'd have a chance to get lit and enjoy the HillGAF meltdown.

Not quite worth it but you've got to look for reasons to smile, I suppose.

As much I dislike certain segments of Hillary supporters for how problematic they are, it wouldn't be funny to set the country back for decades. Not to mention the right-wing is absolutely deplorable and is antithesis to everything I stand for. I would have nothing to smile for nor would my loved ones.

 

[Angelus Errare]

This type of thinking is the reason they don't get a chance. There's no reason you can't put in the work for both cases

But liberals don't do both at all. They vote third party @ Presidency so it's a given. But it's a pointless vote every single time because they can't be arsed to do midterm voting at all.

 

[fart town usa]

So Fart town, I'm actually interested in who you are voting for. Obviously you do not want to listen to Bernie Sanders and vote for Hillary Clinton because you have issues with her (that is ok, I do too). Are you voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?

I'm not voting for president, strictly down ballot for me.

Also, and I'm not saying you implied this but I was never a staunch Sanders supporter. I knew he'd be successful but it was clear that Hillary would take the nomination. I've honestly just been watching the election play out, I'm a total politics junkie. I usually get more involved with voter registration and campaigning but not this time around.

If I may, I find it pretty funny that so many millennials are throwing their support behind Johnson considering how diametrically opposed libertarian/democratic socialist beliefs are.

Johnson would be good on social issues though.

On a completely different note, I wish Jon Huntsman wouldn't have been completely written off in 2012, he could have reshaped the GOP in a good way (possibly) and probably would have been a respectable moderate president. The GOP base is completely bonkers.

 

[ascii42]

He also tried to take away our violent video games, if anyone remembers!

Together with Hillary Clinton, as I recall.

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

There's so much generalizing going on in these threads it irks me to no end.

The Sanders supporters that are going to protest vote, or vote for trump, or not vote at all, are a vocal minority. They do not represent him or the majority of his followers.

I'm a millennial, I voted sanders. I hate Clinton. In the 08 election I protest voted. This year I'm voting for Clinton. Because I know that Trump is an anomaly that must be dealt with. I'm not stupid. Most of us aren't. We already lost the primary, you don't need to rub it in our faces by name calling and generalizing so damn much. In fact that behavior is just making us feel less comfortable then we already are and thus less likely to join sides against trump. You guys talk so much about how unreasonable we are to join you, but you fail to see how unwelcoming you are in the first place.

 

[Future]

There's so much generalizing going on in these threads it irks me to no end.

The Sanders supporters that are going to protest vote, or vote for trump, or not vote at all, are a vocal minority. They do not represent him or the majority of his followers.

I'm a millennial, I voted sanders. I hate Clinton. In the 08 election I protest voted. This year I'm voting for Clinton. Because I know that Trump is an anomaly that must be dealt with. I'm not stupid. Most of us aren't. We already lost the primary, you don't need to rub it in our faces by name calling and generalizing so damn much. In fact that behavior is just making us feel less comfortable then we already are and thus less likely to join sides against trump. You guys talk so much about how unreasonable we are to join you, but you fail to see how unwelcoming you are in the first place.

People are freaking out because polls are turning to trumps favor. Even on this super liberal forum we have liberal people still saying they won't vote Hillary. Even though these liberals know that liberals have low typical turnout with a charismatic candidate on the other side. So yeah, people gonna lash out for a bit

 

[Ekai]

There's so much generalizing going on in these threads it irks me to no end.

The Sanders supporters that are going to protest vote, or vote for trump, or not vote at all, are a vocal minority. They do not represent him or the majority of his followers.

I'm a millennial, I voted sanders. I hate Clinton. In the 08 election I protest voted. This year I'm voting for Clinton. Because I know that Drumpf is an anomaly that must be dealt with. I'm not stupid. Most of us aren't. We already lost the primary, you don't need to rub it in our faces by name calling and generalizing so damn much. In fact that behavior is just making us feel less comfortable then we already are and thus less likely to join sides against trump. You guys talk so much about how unreasonable we are to join you, but you fail to see how unwelcoming you are in the first place.

I'd agree with this sentiment for the most part. The treatment of most progressives by some Democrats is alarming to me.

HillGaffers loves to exaggerate the real numbers when we already know for a fact that Bernie supporters are behind Clinton even more than Clinton supporters were behind Obama. That's been known, and even discussed in OT, for months now. Acting like protest voters are anywhere near significant is a huge waste of energy and frankly speaking insulting. It's freaking out for no reason other than to freak out. Do yourself a favor and look at the base facts on the table. We can acknowledge Trump's polling numbers without making a scapegoat out of people who are known to be overwhelmingly behind Hillary.

It's another reason, among many, why this topic is utterly pointless. We already knew Bernie's stance on this matter (we have since the start) and all it does is explore trite discussion that's been beaten to death.

 

[ghostjoke]

For this to work, both parties need to be equally dissatisfied and decide to go third party at the same time. If just Democrats decide to go 3rd party, Trump will win. If just Republicans decide to go 3rd party, Hillary will win. No one wants to take the first step because of this.

Aren't a lot of republicans also disillusioned at their nominee? I remember a lot of backlash when Trump got the nomination, but I couldn't far the sake of my sanity keep up with it on a daily basis. I figured a fraction of them would be jumping ship to Libertarian and it's just not making news because there are far more "fun" headlines to have over in Camp Trump.

There's a certain level of unscrupulousness to the whole "you have to vote for us because we're your only hope, now and forever", even if it is true. It ties back to me never seeing a time when they won't be saying, "now is not that time to protest vote", when clearly by raw data this election is, consequences be damned by apathy of the two party system.

Now you see why it is important to support The Party Forever even if they nominate a Hillary or Trump or McCain or Dole or Dukakis or Kerry or Mondale. If the other party wins, they will literally destroy everything and we will be set back to Year Zero. Just like the continuous hellscape we've had since Nixon with zero progress in every single avenue of life due to the resetting every four to eight years.

And if you think those times were different and we did survive, well, then the Democrats are more insane left-wing Marxist-Leninists and the Republicans more right-wing Bircher-Birthers than ever before! This time we can't afford it.

That escalated fast.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I guess if there's one silver lining to a Trump victory, it's that I'd have a chance to get lit and enjoy the HillGAF meltdown.

Not quite worth it but you've got to look for reasons to smile, I suppose.

That's actually legitimately a horrible thing to say.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Going to preface this with "I'm not American", so maybe I'm missing something but isn't this the perfect opportunity to get 3rd parties noticed? Neither of the main candidates are looked on with kind eyes. I don't see why you wouldn't be in the same situation in 4 to 8 years when the risk of the progress made by 12/16 years of democratic presidents could be pushed back with a republican presidency; and potentially without vilified (be it truth or slander) presidential nominees in the main parties.

It's bizarre to me that you're asking people who are fatigued with the two party system and want to upheave it to let their feelings sit on the sidelines for another 4 years (at least) when they will likely be in a far less powerful position (relatively) to make a dent. I don't see voting 3rd party as the most fruitful endeavour (however, almost all of that this cycle comes from my personal feelings that Trump should be nowhere near the White House) but the dismissive nature of these as nothing more than vote wasters/potential enablers seems pretty counter-productive to getting them on your side. And that's before you get into the supporters' passive-aggressive insults like "I'm not an idiot because I'm doing X". It's so transparent and self-defeating. If you want to call someone an idiot, just do it, don't dance around it, be honest.

Plus, if one of the 3rd parties get above a certain threshold (regardless of whether they will get the vote in the end), don't they get on the debates? which could make the coming debate shitshow somewhat redeemable.



In fairness, the RATM Christmas no. 1 campaign just double-lined the pockets of Sony, which could be quite apt to this protest vote depending on how things go in November.

Here is a detail that might help a non-american better understand the situation. To win the Presidency outright, you must win over 50% of the Electoral College vote. That is 270 Electoral College votes. If no one reaches 270, then the congress selects the winner from the top 3 vote getters. The house members of each state would caucus and cast their vote as a state.

This means that even a relatively successful 3rd Party bid would not only fail to win, but also wrest the choice of election from the voters and place it in the hands of the incoming congress.

Changing any of this would require a Constitutional Amendment, which is a near impossible task.

Our system is very hostile towards 3rd parties at the Presidential level. I can see how people would view that negatively, but I think the current system has proved advantageous and is a strong factor in the relative strength of american democracy. At it's heart, representative democracy is about the formation of coalitions. Different groups align themselves across various issues in an attempt to consolidate power.

In a multi-party parliamentary system. The coalitions are formed after the elections take place. Disparate parties end up banding together to take power or to oppose. This leads to odd situations like what happened in the UK a few years back. I don't think that people who voted for the Lib Dems considered the fact that their support would ultimately end up directly propping up a Tory PM.

In the American system, the coalitions all happen before hand. Both the GOP and the Dems are really large coalitions. As a voter, we know what those coalitions entail before we cast our votes.

Because both parties coalitions are so large almost all of the credible politicians and ideas are included. Anyone who exists outside of these parties is going to be quite fringe. Any ideas that 3rd parties have that hold merit are inevitably subsumed into the 2 party system. That is why the Greens and Libertarians hold such extreme positions relative to mainstream Politics. If you look at their campaigns, they aren't even really trying to win the election. Neither has a message that could even begin to speak to the electorate at large. Instead each is trying to simply pick up 5% of the vote. If they can consolidate the fringe and get to 5%, then they have access to government election funds.

 

[benjipwns]

People are freaking out because polls are turning to trumps favor. Even on this super liberal forum we have liberal people still saying they won't vote Hillary. Even though these liberals know that liberals have low typical turnout with a charismatic candidate on the other side. So yeah, people gonna lash out for a bit

GAF isn't really all that liberal, it's quite conservative. Can be almost rabidly pro-Democrat though.

Here is a detail that might help a non-american better understand the situation. To win the Presidency outright, you must win over 50% of the Electoral College vote. That is 270 Electoral College votes. If no one reaches 270, then the outgoing congress selects the winner from the top 3 vote getters. The house members of each state would caucus and cast their vote as a state.

It's the incoming House. That was part of reason for the 20th Amendment.

 

[ghostjoke]

Here is a detail that might help a non-american better understand the situation. To win the Presidency outright, you must win over 50% of the Electoral College vote. That is 270 Electoral College votes. If no one reaches 270, then the outgoing congress selects the winner from the top 3 vote getters. The house members of each state would caucus and cast their vote as a state.

This means that even a relatively successful 3rd Party bid would not only fail to win, but also wrest the choice of election from the voters and place it in the hands of a lame duck congress.

Changing any of this would require a Constitutional Amendment, which is a near impossible task.

Our system is very hostile towards 3rd parties at the Presidential level. I can see how people would view that negatively, but I think the current system has proved advantageous and is a strong factor in the relative strength of american democracy. At it's heart, representative democracy is about the formation of coalitions. Different groups align themselves across various issues in an attempt to consolidate power.

In a multi-party parliamentary system. The coalitions are formed after the elections take place. Disparate parties end up banding together to take power or to oppose. This leads to odd situations like what happened in the UK a few years back. I don't think that people who voted for the Lib Dems considered the fact that their support would ultimately end up directly propping up a Tory PM.

In the American system, the coalitions all happen before hand. Both the GOP and the Dems are really large coalitions. As a voter, we know what those coalitions entail before we cast our votes.

Because both parties coalitions are so large almost all of the credible politicians and ideas are included. Anyone who exists outside of these parties is going to be quite fringe. Any ideas that 3rd parties have that hold merit are inevitably subsumed into the 2 party system. That is why the Greens and Libertarians hold such extreme positions relative to mainstream Politics. If you look at their campaigns, they aren't even really trying to win the election. Neither has a message that could even begin to speak to the electorate at large. Instead each is trying to simply pick up 5% of the vote. If they can consolidate the fringe and get to 5%, then they have access to government election funds.

Thanks. This definitely explains the hostile attitude a lot of people have towards voting 3rd party, even if I still think they would be better off not berating them one moment and asking them to change their vote the next. I'm going to look into it further with some Googling as I don't want to take this off point with questions about the system that creates this situation.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think American democracy is healthy when Trump is taking ~45% of the vote. What happened in the UK was unexpected because the UK is not a multi-party system - it's been unable to form a majority government or unopposed minority government precisely once in the post-war era. What's more, the Liberal Democrats had massive incentive not to reveal who they would form a coalition with because if they said "Labour", everyone who was more Conservative-inclined would stop voting for them, and vice versa if they said "Conservative". In genuine multi-party systems, coalitions are an expected facet of life and you do have a good idea of which parties your party is or is not expected to negotiate with.

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

Damn right he is.

Don't turn this into another Brexit, America.

 

[Tigress]

Isn't this said every election cycle? Next time we'll give third parties a chance!

At least since Bush Jr. every election cycle the Republicans manage to outdo the last and make the last look reasonable.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

This type of thinking is the reason they don't get a chance. There's no reason you can't put in the work for both cases

Do they even put the work in mid-terms?

 

[JP_]

it's bizarre, because his fiscal policy is so opposed to Sanders'

I think Johnson gets some support both from disillusioned progressives (usually less politically involved) and also conservatives that don't like Trump (and don't like what their party has become).