Support NeoGAF

[heliosRAzi]

Yep, you "vote your principals," and 32 million people lose their health coverage.

The idea that there is no difference between the two main parties is a joke.

Psst... he's conservative and would vote for Romney.

 

[TheNatural]

Look, there's two separate points:

1) No one is entitled to your vote. Voting for Jill Stein is not "stealing" a vote from Obama. It was really gross how, in 2000, Democrats tried to blame Nader for "stealing" votes. Everyone has to earn votes. If Nader earns them, he earns them. If Stein earns them, she earns them. If Obama fails to earn them, he fails to earn them.

2) Only two possibilities are possible in the outcome of the election. There are structural constraints that make this so. Two possible outcomes. We recognize this. Mitt Romney will be president, or Barack Obama will be president. There are more than two possible choices on the ballot. There are only two possible outcomes of the election. Computer Science majors will recognize the pigeon-hole principle here. The average ideological mapping distance between a Stein supporter and Obama will be lower than the average ideological mapping distance between a Stein supporter and Romney. Voting Stein is, thus, EV- versus voting for Obama--if you are a Stein supporter.

So, yes, voting Stein in a swing state contributes to Mitt Romney's election effort, in terms of the practical outcome. But no, no one gets to tell you that you have no right to vote for Stein, you do not owe Obama anything. Voting for Stein is not a bad idea because it hurts Obama, it's a bad idea if it hurts you as a Stein supporter.

You're not including one ideological mapping distance, and thats from third party to not voting at all. Which is probably the thing most missing here. Most third party voters are disgruntled with the two party system, and disgruntled with both candidates. Sure, most would probably favor one over the other if forced to choose, but I would guess most are so disenchanted with both that they simply would not vote, period.

And in those terms, the vote doesn't contribute to either in practical outcome. That's what is missing.

 

[Arment]

Yes, lets look at exactly how the Tea Partiers did what they did and how exactly 0% of it involved voting for a candidate in the presidential election and how it all came down to the local game.

Sadly most people don't realize it's all about the local elections and that's where their vote does the most good. So they don't vote, thus fulfilling many voter suppression agendas.

 

[Jonm1010]

It's never happened, therefore it never will?

It's not a protest vote, it's a vote for the establishment of a third party which could raise awareness, or at the very least, get the main parties to incorporate more of their ideals in their own agendas. Look at how the Tea Party voters have worked the Republicans over.

And speaking of Ross Perot, no he didn't win, but notice both elections he ran the President that came out of it helped push one of the biggest economic booms in US history. Obviously he felt the pressure from both fronts there to do something - and he did. So much for the 'influence' of a third candidate right?

There's a lot more goals in voting than simply this election. By your logic, I should have voted for Romney, because Obama has as much chance as winning in Kentucky as Jill Stein does. It's not happening for either, so I should just vote for the one who is going to win. That's the crux of your stupid argument. Stop telling people how to vote or what you think their vote is worth, it's no less 'worthy' than yours.

Using the tea party as an example only solidifies my point that that influence begins at the grassroots up. Not from every four year protest votes for a third party that will gain 1%.

Your argument is essentially, my way of establishing a third party by only voting for third party's every four years has never worked, but it just might if I keep doing it and if I hope hard enough that others will do it. One day it might just work!

And again, Ross Perot had marginal relevance because he was a billionaire, and a billionaire before superpacs and ungodly amounts of money became the norm. He didnt create the tech explosion that fueled the economy nor drafted the policies that reigned in the deficit.

Your tea party point actually reaffirms my point, change and influence is made from the ground up and worked through the system, not from the top down. If you're trying to establish a third party or influence the current parties with a third parties views, starting at the presidential election or hedging your plans and bets on that horse is the worst manner to go about it and history bares this out time and again.

 

[GremlinFool]

Proudly cast my votes for Obama and Kuster (Democrat running for Congress in NH).

Tremendous feeling.

 

[eudaemonic]

I was tempted to vote Green, however the risk of having Republicans do another veto tour of congressionally approved federal stem cell research funding was not on the cards. Romney refuses to see the utility of this funding on a federal level - nothing is more heinous for me in this election.

This. Plus countless other issues.

 

[Clydefrog]

CA here. Going to vote at lunchtime. Going 3rd party for president. I don't feel like I have a say anyway, being in CA. I spent a lot more time researching the CA props than researching candidates.

 

[Cyan]

Most third party voters are disgruntled with the two party system, and disgruntled with both candidates. Sure, most would probably favor one over the other if forced to choose, but I would guess most are so disenchanted with both that they simply would not vote, period.

Most? Really? Are you sure you're not generalizing from one example?

Also, I think you'll find that people also aren't happy with people who would vote Obama if they voted, but don't vote.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Probably posted already, but Politico has a live map:

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

28 O/14 R so far, from NH I assume.

 

[diffusionx]

hahaha, sure you do.

As if it's something that's just simply 'understood'. People have dedicated their lives to economic theory, and still can't come to a consensus. But you, you understand.

It's not really that complicated. They want you to think it is, but it's actually not.

Bottom line, if debt was a huge problem right now, interest rates would be going up. That's what sunk Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. They aren't going up. They are actually at an all-time low. Low interest rates are an encouragement to borrow. If anything the government should be borrowing more.

 

[la flama blanca]

I didn't vote today. Feels good.

 

[Hitokage]

Everyone go vote, it's super important! Unless you put thought into your vote and decide to not vote for one of the two people who have the most money. Then you're a dumbass and should stay home dumbass because you are throwing your vote away! People didn't die in wars so that you could freely choose who to vote for.

Well, there's more to vote for than President.

 

[Matt]

Psst... he's conservative and would vote for Romney.

Was more a general point, but ok.

 

[Quick Mustard]

"You should've left our healthcare alone!"

 

[heliosRAzi]

Was more a general point, but ok.

 

[eznark]

Probably posted already, but Politico has a live map:

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

28/14 so far, from NH I assume.

NBC now calling it for Obama

Well, there's more to vote for than President.

The Libertarian coroner candidate in my county is probably the frontrunner. The fucking third party Republican clowns might ruin it though.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

my family in Ohio are traditionally democratic voters, and they voted for Obama in 2008. But luckily I convinced them all to switch their votes for Jill Stein. It's time for real change.

hi five bro.

Why PoliGAF is the superior thread, always.

 

[Eric WK]

I didn't vote today. Feels good.

Probably trolling, but http://www.yourexcusesucks.com

 

[Arment]

I didn't vote today. Feels good.

Polls are still open.

 

[Tesseract]

Everyone go vote, it's super important! Unless you put thought into your vote and decide to not vote for one of the two people who have the most money. Then you're a dumbass and should stay home dumbass because you are throwing your vote away! People didn't die in wars so that you could freely choose who to vote for.

7/10, +1/10th for the last sentence.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

So when do the results come in?

 

[NBtoaster]

So, yes, voting Stein in a swing state contributes to Mitt Romney's election effort, in terms of the practical outcome. But no, no one gets to tell you that you have no right to vote for Stein, you do not owe Obama anything. Voting for Stein is not a bad idea because it hurts Obama, it's a bad idea if it hurts you as a Stein supporter.

I don't think anyone was saying this. Just pointing out that voting for Stein out of principle is really contributing to someone else a with totally different agenda. A right to do something doesn't make it free from critisism.

 

[alundra]

Gobama 👍

 

[Arment]

So when do the results come in?

The last polls close at 11 pm est. We'll get trickling results starting at around 7-8 pm est until they can call it safely.

 

[Dude Abides]

Ron Paul ranting at clouds on CNN.

 

[FlashFlooder]

Yep, you "vote your principals," and 32 million people lose their health coverage.

The idea that there is no difference between the two main parties is a joke.

Haven't you heard, Mitt's already backpedaling?

 

[Hitokage]

So when do the results come in?

Don't hold your breath. Probably not for another six hours.

 

[Guevara]

So when do the results come in?

As soon as the Supreme Court deigns to tell us Romney 'won'

 

[Revengeance]

Proudly cast my votes for Obama and Kuster (Democrat running for Congress in NH).

Tremendous feeling.

Holla at the NH 2nd! I'm casting the same vote when I get out of work later today.

Did you ever catch the "Annie Kuster has lost it" ad? So good, like something out of GTA. Probably in the running for most ridiculous political ad of the season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLMHrbD6eZI

 

[TheNatural]

Using the tea party as an example only solidifies my point that that influence begins at the grassroots up. Not from every four year protest votes for a third party that will gain 1%.

Your argument is essentially, my way of establishing a third party by only voting for third party's every four years has never worked, but it just might if I keep doing it and if I hope hard enough that others will do it. One day it might just work!

And again, Ross Perot had marginal relevance because he was a billionaire, and a billionaire before superpacs and ungodly amounts of money became the norm. He didnt create the tech explosion that fueled the economy nor drafted the policies that reigned in the deficit.

Your tea party point actually reaffirms my point, change and influence is made from the ground up and worked through the system, not from the top down. If you're trying to establish a third party or influence the current parties with a third parties views, starting at the presidential election or hedging your plans and bets on that horse is the worst manner to go about it and history bares this out time and again.

You say that as if Green Party hasn't had any grassroots movement. I signed the petition to get them on the ballot in my state and then voted for them. Ralph Nader ran under the Green Party banner after being one of the biggest consumer advocates in US history, taking on unsafe practices by the auto industry.

I vote this way for a reason, and you, nor anyone else is going to tell me which way to vote or stop be from doing so. You can think whatever you want, if my option is off the table, I'm not voting for Romney OR Obama, period. That's what you don't seem to get.

 

[eznark]

Ron Paul ranting at clouds on CNN.

But clouds are white?

 

[Stumpokapow]

It's never happened, therefore it never will?

It's not a protest vote, it's a vote for the establishment of a third party which could raise awareness, or at the very least, get the main parties to incorporate more of their ideals in their own agendas. Look at how the Tea Party voters have worked the Republicans over.

The Tea Party voters worked the Republicans over through a) awareness outside the party system, and b) aggressive pursuit of party primaries, NOT by voting third-party in the presidential election. No one is telling you to support establishment Democrats or otherwise compromise your principles, they're telling you that just because you don't like the rules, doesn't mean the system doesn't operate by them.

There's a lot more goals in voting than simply this election. By your logic, I should have voted for Romney, because Obama has as much chance as winning in Kentucky as Jill Stein does. It's not happening for either, so I should just vote for the one who is going to win. That's the crux of your stupid argument. Stop telling people how to vote or what you think their vote is worth, it's no less 'worthy' than yours.

His argument isn't stupid or facile or undeveloped and it makes no sense to call it such. You might disagree in the end, but it's not a stupid argument. Where electoral math is in play, you vote based on the electoral system to optimize the result. Where your vote can't possibly matter, you vote based on personal/legitimacy factors.

Votes in non-swing states will not change the electoral outcome. They will (marginally!) change the perceived legitimacy of losing candidates. In the Green context, it helps them have ore legitimacy going forward. It might help them hit the 5% threshold on a material basis. In the context of voting for Obama in Kentucky, it helps establish a popular vote majority for Obama (which will help his legitimacy and avoid the capital-sucking situation of an EV/PV split), help strengthen his mandate to govern, and increase issue salience of the issues he ran on. Both votes are essentially about legitimacy.

However, the Greens will not hit 5% nationally, and so the fractional value of your vote for the funding purposes is not there. So it's down to legitimacy. Legitimacy is important. I think it has value. But will the Greens reap the windfall of further legitimacy from Stein performing well? Has Stein built a robust party infrastructure? Have the Greens won any races locally to build a party bench? If Stein opts not to run for the Greens in 2016, will they have benefitted from this race? I'm not sure the answer is yes. I'm not sure I can point to an issue that voters would now associate specifically with the Green party. I'm not sure I see a base to build on. I see the whole works resetting. I see the Greens having to fight tooth and nail for every vote just as hard as they did this time. Did the Greens inherit any legitimacy from 2008? Who was the Green nominee in 2008 (don't look it up!)? What are the issues you associated with the Greens from 2008? Who was the Green nominee in 2004? Did that nominee inherit anything from the 2000 campaign, where the Greens had a record performance?

So, what I'm getting at here is... even looking at the intangible impacts of voting, even conceding the material / electoral outcome issues... is it better to vote Democratic or Green, even assuming you're intellectually close to the Green party?

I have voted for the Green Party in my country, although they're to the right of the American Greens. I generally vote for candidates in my country whose ideologically mappings are fairly close to American Greens or northeastern Democrats depending on the per-riding situation

I don't think anyone was saying this. Just pointing out that voting for Stein out of principle is really contributing to someone else a with totally different agenda. A right to do something doesn't make it free from critisism.

The language of "entitlement" is absolutely a part of the discussion. And worse, someone's motivation for voting should not be questioned but often is. If you're going to convince someone to come back into the major party fold, it shouldn't be because you don't accept why they're voting third party, it should be because you've looked at their interests and intents and shown how they're better served by voting for a major party.

 

[Kingbrave]

I didn't vote today. Feels good.

Commie!

 

[mernst23]

Voted for Gary J in Illinois.

Let's go Romney popular vote win, down with the EC once and for all.

 

[DarthWoo]

Voted straight DEM ticket, except I wrote myself in for treasurer for Ss&Gs. Doesn't count for much in my area though, since SE PA suburbs are pretty much solid GOP enclave.

 

[eudaemonic]

CA here. Going to vote at lunchtime. Going 3rd party for president. I don't feel like I have a say anyway, being in CA. I spent a lot more time researching the CA props than researching candidates.

Don't forget to vote for the guy who wanted to raise awareness that there's a bias against small dogs at the dog park and thinks the 4th of July fireworks are too loud. *chuckles*

 

[Soi-Fong]

I have a feeling we won't know exactly till early hours tomorrow morning.

 

[Buzzati]

Voted for Gary J in Illinois.

Let's go Romney popular vote win, down with the EC once and for all.

Without the electoral college, democrats would win hand over fist every time.

 

[Curtisaur]

Yeeeeah I got my vote on. feelsgood

 

[mernst23]

Without the electoral college, democrats would win hand over fist every time.

You're saying that like it's a bad thing?

 

[Rentahamster]

If you honestly care about a third party, just voting for them once every 4 years is the least possible effect you could have on anything, ever.

You make it sound like that's all anyone will ever do.

The Green Party are just Democrats that don't like compromise

Democrats seem pretty content in drone strikes, starting new conflicts, and maintaining the drug war just fine. Keeps the military industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex running smoothly.

 

[Buzzati]

You're saying that like it's a bad thing?

No, but I thought you were implying that you wanted the EC abolished while at the same time routing for a Romney popular vote win.

 

[notsol337]

If a vote for Jill Stein "steals" from Obama and counts for Romney... does a vote for Johnson count as a vote for Obama?

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Voted straight ticket Democrat for the first time in my life this election. There's a part of me that hates doing that but I feel - speaking as a Texan - that the Republican Party at the national level and particularly here in my state has gone so far off the deep end of trickle down, every-man-is-an-island economic theory and religious fundamentalist fuckery that a message needs to be sent. The party needs an enema.

If a vote for Jill Stein "steals" from Obama and counts for Romney... does a vote for Johnson count as a vote for Obama?

No, but it certainly benefits Obama.

 

[mernst23]

No, but I thought you were implying that you wanted the EC abolished while at the same time routing for a Romney popular vote win.

If Romney wins the popular vote and loses the EC, the chances of the EC being dissolved for the next election will be the highest ever.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Without the electoral college, democrats would win hand over fist every time.

The most likely immediate impact without the EC would be candidates campaigning relentlessly in the areas (not states, we'd likely see the operative divisions be either media markets or metropolitan areas) that best exemplify a combination of ideological purity and high overall population. It'd be pretty easy to set up an effort matrix by showing different combinations of the two factors.

You'd assume that Democrats would win hand-over-fist because of the tendency of urban areas to turn out Democratic, but this isn't necessarily how things would play out. The issue dimensions and salience would change significantly without the EC as well--in other words, the positions Democrats currently hold would not be the same as the positions Democrats hold going forward, and same with the Republicans. The emphasis on rural values on the part of Republicans would change. Republicans would try hard to expose new cleavages in society and position themselves on the winning side versus Democrats.

It's difficult to say how the overall representativeness of the final outcome would change and how overall turnout would change, especially over the long-term. And making matters worse, over the long term the impacts of the structural change and the change that would have happened over time anyway will become confused, making it difficult to even measure the change.

 

[Jonm1010]

You say that as if Green Party hasn't had any grassroots movement. I signed the petition to get them on the ballot in my state and then voted for them. Ralph Nader ran under the Green Party banner after being one of the biggest consumer advocates in US history, taking on unsafe practices by the auto industry.

I vote this way for a reason, and you, nor anyone else is going to tell me which way to vote or stop be from doing so. You can think whatever you want, if my option is off the table, I'm not voting for Romney OR Obama, period. That's what you don't seem to get.

And you seem to not understand that voting for Stein is only helping Romney. Which is fine if you understand that.

What I take more issue with is this naive notion that a presidential election will have even a minor influence on the system, the parties, the third parties, the national discussion or anything else.

If you really want to support the green party and it's ideas you should be spending the next 3 years and 364 days working toward establishing the greens locally, building their influence, taking part in grass roots efforts to influence the current system and parties and use 4 years from now to assess the progress you made or didn't make and go from there.

The point most people are making to you is that those prior 3 years and 364 days are more important than a vote on this day and little else prior(signing a petition counts little).

 

[eznark]

And you seem to not understand that voting for Stein is only helping Romney. Which is fine if you understand that.

What I take more issue with is this naive notion that a presidential election will have even a minor influence on the system, the parties, the third parties, the national discussion or anything else.

If you really want to support the green party and it's ideas you should be spending the next 3 years and 364 days working toward establishing the greens locally, building their influence, taking part in grass roots efforts to influence the current system and parties and use 4 years from now to assess the progress you made or didn't make and go from there.

The point most people are making to you is that those prior 3 years and 364 days are more important than a vote on this day and little else prior(signing a petition counts little).

Not technically true. With the 5% rule, it's likely that any vote for a Green/Libertarian candidate is much more significant than a vote for Obamney.

 

[TheNatural]

The Tea Party voters worked the Republicans over through a) awareness outside the party system, and b) aggressive pursuit of party primaries, NOT by voting third-party in the presidential election. No one is telling you to support establishment Democrats or otherwise compromise your principles, they're telling you that just because you don't like the rules, doesn't mean the system doesn't operate by them.



Don't call other people "stupid". That's not very nice.
Votes in non-swing states will not change the electoral outcome. They will (marginally!) change the perceived legitimacy of losing candidates. In the Green context, it helps them have ore legitimacy going forward. It might help them hit the 5% threshold on a material basis. In the context of voting for Obama in Kentucky, it helps establish a popular vote majority for Obama (which will help his legitimacy and avoid the capital-sucking situation of an EV/PV split), help strengthen his mandate to govern, and increase issue salience of the issues he ran on. Both votes are essentially about legitimacy.

However, the Greens will not hit 5% nationally, and so the fractional value of your vote for the funding purposes is not there. So it's down to legitimacy. Legitimacy is important. I think it has value. But will the Greens reap the windfall of further legitimacy from Stein performing well? Has Stein built a robust party infrastructure? Have the Greens won any races locally to build a party bench? If Stein opts not to run for the Greens in 2016, will they have benefitted from this race? I'm not sure the answer is yes. I'm not sure I can point to an issue that voters would now associate specifically with the Green party. I'm not sure I see a base to build on. I see the whole works resetting. I see the Greens having to fight tooth and nail for every vote just as hard as they did this time. Did the Greens inherit any legitimacy from 2008? Who was the Green nominee in 2008 (don't look it up!)? What are the issues you associated with the Greens from 2008? Who was the Green nominee in 2004? Did that nominee inherit anything from the 2000 campaign, where the Greens had a record performance?

So, what I'm getting at here is... even looking at the intangible impacts of voting, even conceding the material / electoral outcome issues... is it better to vote Democratic or Green, even assuming you're intellectually close to the Green party?

I have voted for the Green Party in my country, although they're to the right of the American Greens. I generally vote for candidates in my country whose ideologically mappings are fairly close to American Greens or northeastern Democrats depending on the per-riding situation



The language of "entitlement" is absolutely a part of the discussion. And worse, someone's motivation for voting should not be questioned but often is. If you're going to convince someone to come back into the major party fold, it shouldn't be because you don't accept why they're voting third party, it should be because you've looked at their interests and intents and shown how they're better served by voting for a major party.

1) It's not nice for people to tell me how to vote, tell me I should have stayed home, or say my vote is more wasted than anyone elses either.

2) Maybe the Green Party won't hit 5% nationally, but I can try, and my vote goes a lot more to the ways of that percentage that the large percentage Romney will win this state by.

3) And also, maybe Stein isn't building a base on her back, but any vote for the Green Party lets it continue as an entity in the future where another candiate can come forward in the party for the future. Maybe it's not established as a real contender, but it's at least established as a party that is on a large amount of ballots in states - moreso than any other third party I believe. Simply existing on its own merits is hard enough. Ask the Reform Party about that after Perot left politics and they dissolved.

 

[pigeon]

The most likely immediate impact without the EC would be candidates campaigning relentlessly in the areas (not states, we'd likely see the operative divisions be either media markets or metropolitan areas) that best exemplify a combination of ideological purity and high overall population. It'd be pretty easy to set up an effort matrix by showing different combinations of the two factors.

You'd assume that Democrats would win hand-over-fist because of the tendency of urban areas to turn out Democratic, but this isn't necessarily how things would play out. The issue dimensions and salience would change significantly without the EC as well--in other words, the positions Democrats currently hold would not be the same as the positions Democrats hold going forward, and same with the Republicans. The emphasis on rural values on the part of Republicans would change. Republicans would try hard to expose new cleavages in society and position themselves on the winning side versus Democrats.

It's difficult to say how the overall representativeness of the final outcome would change and how overall turnout would change, especially over the long-term. And making matters worse, over the long term the impacts of the structural change and the change that would have happened over time anyway will become confused, making it difficult to even measure the change.

I don't even think its really necessary to go into this much depth. If getting rid of the EC would benefit democrats so much there would have been more than one PV/EV split in the last hundred years.