Support NeoGAF

[God Dayumm]

That even one person voted third party or not at all speaks volumes of the mediocrity of both major parties and specially Hillary Clinton. The most pathetic presidential campaign in recent history.

 

[CrimsonSquall]

It simply isn't going to happen. The majority of states would lose electoral power. Might as well undo the connecticut compromise and have senate seats be proportional to a states population as well. Smaller states will never ever agree to it.

It'll be a long and hard battle but I don't want to hear the word never ever again politics. It's an ill-placed word, Trump was just elected against all odds. Things can change, we just need enough action to do it. The more people that speak out against it like Eric Holder, the faster we will get there

 

[Morrigan Stark]

third-party voters tend to be (much) higher-information voters than the ones who reflexively vote for a major party candidate,

[citation needed]

It's not enough to not be as horrible as your opponent.

But... it is. When the stakes are that high? Of course it's enough.

Edit: I mean from the POV of a voter, not the party. Obviously the Dems will have to realize that next time they need to sell feel-good feelings better, and not rely on facts and platforms and issues.

 

[Melkezadek]

Rather than trying to blame folks who voted third party blame Clinton for trying hard enough to sway folks over to vote for her.

I don't believe this for a second. What could have Clinton said to these people that would've swayed them? This kind of "make them earn it" mentality only hurts the voters themselves. It doesn't harm her in the slightest.

The voters had all the information they needed to make an informed decision. You can blame Clinton all you want, but the voters are at fault. More specifically, the left. How could a voter see past all the "both sides are the same" rhetoric? How could they feel good about Clinton when any show of support of her was met with criticism?

The ridiculous dislike for her by so called "progressives" created an environment of false equivalency and distrust in the only candidate with a chance to beat Trump. The privileged "allies" on the Left didn't want to choose between the "lesser of two evils", so they decided to protest or sit it out. Now minorities and women will have to deal with the fallout while everyone tries to figure out how to appeal to the rural white majority and Trump supporters.

Now everyone wants to place blame on her instead of taking any kind of personal responsibility. It's pathetic.

 

[phanphare]

As I said before, they should be treated the same as non-voters in terms of presidential voting.

that's not what you said before and it still doesn't make sense because you're hyper focusing on the top of the ticket which is arguably the least important part of the ballot in terms of affecting change for the community that you're voting in

 

[Shanlei91]

Reading all of these articles makes me empathize towards every school teacher who has ever had to listen to a million excuses from a student as to why they didn't do their homework.

 

[Steel]

That or Clinton was a shitty choice. It's not enough to not be as horrible as your opponent.

It is for Republicans.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I don't believe this for a second. What could have Clinton said to these people that would've swayed them? This kind of "make them earn it" mentality only hurts the voters themselves. It doesn't harm her in the slightest.

The voters had all the information they needed to make an informed decision. You can blame Clinton all you want, but the voters are at fault. More specifically, the left. How could a voter see past all the "both sides are the same" rhetoric? How could they feel good about Clinton when any show of support of her was met with criticism?

The ridiculous dislike for her by so called "progressives" created an environment of false equivalency and distrust in the only candidate with a chance to beat Trump.

Now everyone wants to place blame on her instead of taking any kind of personal responsibility. It's pathetic.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Exactly. It's not enough to be "not the other guy".

It was for most people that voted. Some simply refuse to be pragmatic to stop a Trump from happening. It's childish, playing games when the future of the country is at stake.

I supported Bernie, and then I moved on to Hillary no questions asked, because it's the right thing to do. It was also a rejection of the tactics/entities at work that spent the entirety of the election cycle smearing her for bullshit.

I don't absolve her of campaigning like an idiot at times, but the choice was clear.

I don't know but it's probably inversely proportional to the extent that Black voters have not have their concerns addressed.



That or Clinton was a shitty choice. It's not enough to not be as horrible as your opponent.

Clinton was literally the only one out there directly address the concerns of black voters, she went all in, to the extent we haven't seen from candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost her some voters actually, considering just how upset so much of the white electorate get when racism is brought up. It stopped being all about them, very fragile like that. I'm not shocked that Obama shied away from it when he ran.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

sneering at them and calling them whiny privileged idiots doesn't really help you achieve your political goals, even if it's something you believe.

The opinions of people who vote based on how they are treated on the internet are even more worthless than third-party voters for president.

 

[zaccheus]

I don't believe this for a second. What could have Clinton said to these people that would've swayed them? This kind of "make them earn it" mentality only hurts the voters themselves. It doesn't harm her in the slightest.

The voters had all the information they needed to make an informed decision. You can blame Clinton all you want, but the voters are at fault. More specifically, the left. How could a voter see past all the "both sides are the same" rhetoric? How could they feel good about Clinton when any show of support of her was met with criticism?

The ridiculous dislike for her by so called "progressives" created an environment of false equivalency and distrust in the only candidate with a chance to beat Trump.

Now everyone wants to place blame on her instead of taking any kind of personal responsibility. It's pathetic.

hillary is not the progressive candidate that her supporters think she is. She was against gay marriage, bill clinton was the one who passed the dont ask dont tell act, she and bill were responsible for mass incarcerations of blacks (which is why she did poorly with the black vote), she supports the tpp, she voted for the iraq war, she voted to bail the banks out. she is exactly the corporate, establishment politician that people are sick of. that being said, i wanted her to win over trump as the dem's policies are much more progressive (which is sad) compared to the republican platform. the dem platform thanks to bernie was pushed left, but in the end her inability to fire up the base and just bashing on trump made her lose. she lost out on votes not because people are racist, dumb, stupid, but because they didn't agree with what she stands for. she and trump both did poorly in raw voting numbers, so overall not many people were interested in this election since both choices are bad.

 

[Switch Back 9]

As a non-American, I think it's pretty fucked up that your political system is literally built against the idea of "vote for the person you want to win". A two-party system where you have to swallow one bullshit bitter bill in order to prevent the other, much worse bullshit person from winning is whack as hell.

In the context of Donald Trump I understand why in this particular election people feel a lot of anger towards third-party voters, but saying they're just as worse as republican voters because they voted for who they wanted in a democracy is just so bizarre to me.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

As a non-American, I think it's pretty fucked up that your political system is literally built against the idea of "vote for the person you want to win". A two-party system where you have to swallow one bullshit bitter bill in order to prevent the other, much worse bullshit person from winning is whack as hell.

In the context of Donald Trump I understand why in this particular election people feel a lot of anger towards third-party voters, but saying they're just as worse as republican voters because they voted for who they wanted in a democracy is just so bizarre to me.

Not really. People vote pragmatically all the time, even here in Canada. There's fluffy idealism, and there's reality. Unfortunately, we live in the reality, and our choices affect reality and the real lives of people, so voting pragmatically is what rational adults should definitely do, especially when the stakes are so high.

Last year was the Canadian federal election. I wanted Harper and the Conservatives out of power at all costs because they cause real damage to the nation. I supported the NPD the most, and preferred Mulcair over Trudeau. But, if I had been in a riding where there was a tight race between the CPC and the Liberals, and the NPD was a distant third, I would have definitely voted Liberal to make sure to avoid giving a seat to the CPC.

 

[Hindl]

Third parties did not cost Hillary Clinton the election

 

[Kinyou]

Honestly, I think without Johnson Trump wins by even more. So probably should keep looking for another scapegoat.

True. I'm not sure it's quite realistic to assume that they're all lost hillary votes.

 

[Switch Back 9]

Not really. People vote pragmatically all the time, even here in Canada. There's fluffy idealism, and there's reality. Unfortunately, we live in the reality, and our choices affect reality and the real lives of people, so voting pragmatically is what rational adults should definitely do, especially when the stakes are so high.

I suppose you're right, but I've never seen anyone up here get so angry at people who vote green (or in my case) NDP instead of Lib or Con. Granted, our choices aren't as black and white as Trump vs. Hillary but still.

Last year was the Canadian federal election. I wanted Harper and the Conservatives out of power at all costs because they cause real damage to the nation. I supported the NPD the most, and preferred Mulcair over Trudeau. But, if I had been in a riding where there was a tight race between the CPC and the Liberals, and the NPD was a distant third, I would have definitely voted Liberal to make sure to avoid giving a seat to the CPC.

Yes, that's a good point too I guess. My riding is Con vs NDP so I didn't even really have to think too much about it.

On that note, I saw one of your posts sometime last week where you said that you felt here in Canada people vote for the party, not the person. I was under a ban at the time but I want to take the opportunity to agree with you—at least from a personal perspective. I've never in my life voted for a party because the head was charming or anything like that. Policy first and foremost.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I suppose you're right, but I've never seen anyone up here get so angry at people who vote green (or in my case) NDP instead of Lib or Con. Granted, our choices aren't as black and white as Trump vs. Hillary but still.

See my edit. I would definitely have been annoyed at someone voting NPD or Green in a riding with a tight CPC/Liberal race.

The left vote being split among the NPD and Liberal can be a problem. I don't want a two-party system, mind, and at least there was the possibility of a coalition if the Liberal didn't have enough seats (and fortunately they did and ousted the CPC), but at some point you ought to face reality and vote accordingly.

 

[Switch Back 9]

See my edit. I would definitely have been annoyed at someone voting NPD or Green in a riding with a tight CPC/Liberal race.

The left vote being split among the NPD and Liberal can be a problem. I don't want a two-party system, mind, and at least there was the possibility of a coalition if the Liberal didn't have enough seats (and fortunately they did and ousted the CPC), but at some point you ought to face reality and vote accordingly.

This was a huge worry for many people I spoke to prior to the election. The whole FPTP system is shit too. Thankfully it worked out fine this time around, but who knows what the future holds.

edit: Sorry for de-railing into Canadian politics, just wanted to throw my two cents in.

I don't think it would bother as much if I didn't know for a fact, in that many of the people I've spoken with about as to why they're voting third party, is because it wasn't Trump or Hillary. Many of them couldn't even articulate their policies. Hell, some of them had policies and ideas they were TOTALLY against, but still voted for them.

If you voted for Johnson or Stein because you truly believed in their values and policies, I bare no ill towards you. If you voted for them out of protest, I feel you're just as guilty. Don't tell me about your principals, when you're still voting for someone who is against your principals.

Yeah that's totally fair and I agree.

 

[Melkezadek]

As a non-American, I think it's pretty fucked up that your political system is literally built against the idea of "vote for the person you want to win". A two-party system where you have to swallow one bullshit bitter bill in order to prevent the other, much worse bullshit person from winning is whack as hell.

In the context of Donald Trump I understand why in this particular election people feel a lot of anger towards third-party voters, but saying they're just as worse as republican voters because they voted for who they wanted in a democracy is just so bizarre to me.

I don't think it would bother as much if I didn't know for a fact, in that many of the people I've spoken with about as to why they're voting third party, is because it wasn't Trump or Hillary. Many of them couldn't even articulate their policies. Hell, some of them had policies and ideas they were TOTALLY against, but still voted for them.

If you voted for Johnson or Stein because you truly believed in their values and policies, I bare no ill towards you. If you voted for them out of protest, I feel you're just as guilty. Don't tell me about your principals, when you're still voting for someone who is against your principals.

 

[andythinkpad]

...


Gladly. Congrats on electing Trump because "Hillary is unappealing" despite having a solid platform.

Can I have that under my avatar?

 

[Rentahamster]

I just want to say thank you for this thread.

You are welcome

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Honestly, I think without Johnson Trump wins by even more. So probably should keep looking for another scapegoat.

Yeah, sans Johnson pulling 3+%, I bet Trump would have gotten the popular vote, as well. Frankly, after this election, I'm MORE likely to vote Third Party if the Dems keep puttin up corporatist hacks with no broad appeal like Clinton.

 

[JordanN]

Blaming third parties is hilarious given:

1. Both have access to fewer funds than Democrats and Republicans
2. They still have to compete even when they're denied access to the national debates

More power to the third parties. The two party system is terrible.

 

[Kettch]

Third party voters should be treated the same as people who don't vote at all. Their opinions on politics are worthless.

Remember when people were telling Bernie voters that they weren't needed and that Clinton would win the election without them? How did that work out?

If you want to write off all non-Clinton registered voters then...get used to losing elections.

 

[sonto340]

It simply isn't going to happen. The majority of states would lose electoral power. Might as well undo the connecticut compromise and have senate seats be proportional to a states population as well. Smaller states will never ever agree to it.

I understand this argument, but when we can end up in a situations where over one million people voted the other way than the guy who won things are broken.

Representation being proportional to a population makes a lot of sense. The argument is why should our state have less power because we have less people, but in reality people in larger states have proportionally less power than people in smaller states.

 

[guek]

Yeah that shit wasn't happening, don't blame the third party people, blame the flops who voted for Trump

I'm more inclined to blame the people who didn't vote at all.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Remember when people were telling Bernie voters that they weren't needed and that Clinton would win the election without them? How did that work out?

Who said that? I seem to recall people being very pissed at "Bernie or busters" people, and Hillary herself addressing the Bernie fans and telling them she has heard their voice and wanted to be worthy of them and so on.

Not that any of this has to do with third party voters, mind...

 

[digdug2k]

I don't understand the numbers in the graph. PA had 68,236 difference in votes between Clinton and Trump. There were 191,565 third party votes. She only needs 35% of those to win. Are they assuming that for every vote she gets from third parties, Trump gets 0.5 votes from third parties or something? (The WI and MI numbers have her winning in all cases).

Third party votes fucked this over (along with a shitload of other things). If you live in these states and voted Stein, you can thank yourself for this douchebag too, along with all the rest of us.

 

[Neoweee]

Yeah, sans Johnson pulling 3+%, I bet Trump would have gotten the popular vote, as well. Frankly, after this election, I'm MORE likely to vote Third Party if the Dems keep puttin up corporatist hacks with no broad appeal like Clinton.

There's not really any evidence in exit polls that Johnson was lopsidedly more Trump than Hillary supporters. He looked like a mix of the two.

 

[CHC]

That or Clinton was a shitty choice. It's not enough to not be as horrible as your opponent.

No argument from me there, but I think there were a lot of factors in why she lost.

 

[Staccat0]

Someone (maybe here) recently said "Republicans vote pragmatically to further their interests. Democrats vote as though they are choosing a fucking roommate."

That's what I blame. People spitting empty bullshit in this thread are proof positive that we let memes have too much sway in politics.

Who said that? I seem to recall people being very pissed at "Bernie or busters" people, and Hillary herself addressing the Bernie fans and telling them she has heard their voice and wanted to be worthy of them and so on.

Not that any of this has to do with third party voters, mind...

I remember seeing quite a bit of it around here. It was just random people though. No idea why someone would mention it now.

 

[BajiBoxer]

I wouldn't worry about the 3rd party people too much. Instead I'd be looking to see what can be done about bringing some of the non-voters into the fold.

 

[Melkezadek]

Who said that? I seem to recall people being very pissed at "Bernie or busters" people, and Hillary herself addressing the Bernie fans and telling them she has heard their voice and wanted to be worthy of them and so on.

Not that any of this has to do with third party voters, mind...

No no no, it's easier to pout about Bernie Sanders and rewrite history.

Especially the Bernie or Busters who boasted about him walking with Martin Luther King and championing civil rights. When Bernie lost, they said "fuck your civil rights"

 

[Septimus Prime]

Third parties have always been in play and will continue to be. A successful campaign needs to keep that in mind and move forward accordingly. I'd imagine bad polling data probably did push some people into voting third party, since they thought their votes wouldn't matter, though, but I doubt it's a high enough number to have been able to sway the whole election either way.

 

[Platinumstorm]

Never should we blame third party voters for expressing their opinion.

 

[Schlorgan]

90,000 people that voted in Michigan left the presidential section blank.

The result was due to just how negatively both candidates where viewed by pretty much everyone. We'd be smart not to completely ignore unfavorables whether we feel they are justified or not, again.

This. DNC shouldn't be blaming 3rd party voters for them picking such a poor candidate.

 

[Rentahamster]

Who said that? I seem to recall people being very pissed at "Bernie or busters" people, and Hillary herself addressing the Bernie fans and telling them she has heard their voice and wanted to be worthy of them and so on.

Not that any of this has to do with third party voters, mind...

Here's an example.

http://www.newsweek.com/ignore-bernie-bros-hillary-clinton-469314

IGNORE THE BERNIE BROS, HILLARY

All of which is to say Bernie Bros like Roper will matter increasingly less, in the coming weeks. There’s nothing Clinton can do to earn his support, Roper insists. He’d even stomach a Trump presidency, “which sucks. Which totally, totally sucks. But I tend to take the long view. As distasteful as it was to see George W. Bush be our president, the pendulum swung back and gave us Barack Obama, who in my mind has been one of the greatest presidents of the last 100 years,” Roper says. “That was a major net positive. I trust that if Trump gets elected, something similar will happen. On principal, I cannot vote for Hillary. I won’t be part of a system where we hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils.”

He’ll write in Sanders, Roper says, or abstain altogether. Clinton is hoping voters like him are in the minority, especially in swing states.

Also, remember #basementdwellers

 

[excelsiorlef]

third-party voters tend to be (much) higher-information voters than the ones who reflexively vote for a major party candidate, and most don't vote for third-party candidates in every election (meaning they can be persuaded to vote for a major candidate)

sneering at them and calling them whiny privileged idiots doesn't really help you achieve your political goals, even if it's something you believe.

How can you say this with a straight face given the sheer embarrassments that were Aleppo and Cancerous Wifi?

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Remember when people were telling Bernie voters that they weren't needed and that Clinton would win the election without them? How did that work out?

Bernie voters? With the way Clinton adopted some of Bernie's policies and the man himself campaigned for her, I assume most of his supporters were rational and voted for her. We're talking about third-party voters.

 

[satriales]

Third party voters should be treated the same as people who don't vote at all. Their opinions on politics are worthless.

They made the effort to go out and vote for the candidate they believed the most in and shouldn't be criticised just because they didn't vote tactically.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

I don't believe this for a second. What could have Clinton said to these people that would've swayed them? This kind of "make them earn it" mentality only hurts the voters themselves. It doesn't harm her in the slightest.

The voters had all the information they needed to make an informed decision. You can blame Clinton all you want, but the voters are at fault. More specifically, the left. How could a voter see past all the "both sides are the same" rhetoric? How could they feel good about Clinton when any show of support of her was met with criticism?

The ridiculous dislike for her by so called "progressives" created an environment of false equivalency and distrust in the only candidate with a chance to beat Trump. The privileged "allies" on the Left didn't want to choose between the "lesser of two evils", so they decided to protest or sit it out. Now minorities and women will have to deal with the fallout while everyone tries to figure out how to appeal to the rural white majority and Trump supporters.

Now everyone wants to place blame on her instead of taking any kind of personal responsibility. It's pathetic.

This. People (more so on the Dem side) need their president to be a beer buddy before they can vote for them, rather than try to further their political and progressive agenda.

I would not be surprised if some BoB guys here didn't vote for Clinton and are now saying that it's Clinton's fault Trump is president.

 

[forrest]

Third party voters should be treated the same as people who don't vote at all. Their opinions on politics are worthless.

This is such a garbage post. People vote for who they would like to see be our next president. It doesn't matter if they are the Republican candidate, Democratic candidate or a Third Party running. You vote for who you think would make the best president. End of story.

 

[Kettch]

Who said that? I seem to recall people being very pissed at "Bernie or busters" people, and Hillary herself addressing the Bernie fans and telling them she has heard their voice and wanted to be worthy of them and so on.

Not that any of this has to do with third party voters, mind...

It was said a lot on GAF in Bernie threads.

This exlusionary sentiment seems to be growing, and it isn't healthy at all. We can't just say "fuck third party voters", "fuck voters who stayed at home", "we'll win elections with our 60 million who came out this time". We need to appeal to everyone we can. Winning elections is the goal here, not starting up exclusive clubs.

This is a response to the guy who said that the opinions of these voters/non-voters are worthless.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

3rd party wasn't the issue here. It was her campaign which lacked basic strategy.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

There's not really any evidence in exit polls that Johnson was lopsidedly more Trump than Hillary supporters. He looked like a mix of the two.

Johnson's percentage was 3.5x higher than it was in 2012. Some of that is the Ron Paul youth vote, but from my experience, most Libertarians I've known hate Dem economic policies more than they hate Rep social policies because they see the latter as easier to combat and reverse, whereas the former breeds dependence on the government and entails "violence" inflicted against them in the form of tax collection. Of course at least some Johnson voters would have gone Clinton, but some Stein supporters would have gone Trump, too.

It's a moot argument because if your margins require third party voters that are baked into the pie from the beginning to win, your candidate was a losing one, period.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

They made the effort to go out and vote for the candidate they believed the most in and shouldn't be criticised just because they didn't vote tactically.

This is such a garbage post. People vote for who they would like to see be our next president. It doesn't matter if they are the Republican candidate, Democratic candidate or a Third Party running. You vote for who you think would make the best president. End of story.

I disagree. I think the odds of winning should be considered when voting.

 

[TyrantII]

Yeah that shit wasn't happening, don't blame the third party people, blame the flops who voted for Trump

Nah, its the same shrinking Teaparty minority.

I blame the 10 million Obama voters that stabbed his legacy in the back for whatever reason they didn't show.

 

[eot]

I disagree. I think the odds of winning should be considered when voting.

You know what happens when they get 5% right?

 

[Meier]

Uhh, they need to check their math for Michigan. If 60% of the third party vote went to Hillary, she wins the state by 33,000. 60/40 would be a 134, 224 / 89,483 split.

Oh I see why I'm confused. You would think if you have a "Y axis" that the things next to it would represent that. I didn't notice the check marks initially so the Trump still wins text threw me off.

 

[Rentahamster]

Uhh, they need to check their math for Michigan. If 60% of the third party vote went to Hillary, she wins the state by 33,000. 60/40 would be a 134, 224 / 89,483 split.

Look at the infographic.