Support NeoGAF

[Rudimental]

"The symbolic value of my vote is more important than the practical value of rights."

 

[KRod-57]

I hear you and I don't doubt you've thought through your reasons for opposing Hillary, but make no mistake: your intentions are completely irrelevant to the actual effect of your vote, which can be used to support either a flawed candidate who is qualified to do the job, by voting for her, or a completely unqualified and dangerously brash and ignorant charlatan by voting for him or a third party candidate, or not voting at all.

There are no two ways about it: mathematically speaking (the only way either party notices the average individual), you're either for Trump or against him. This is the reality of a two party system, and your or my feelings about it can't change that. You can use your vote to do some actual measurable good, or not.

I definitely wouldn't consider not voting. I am a resident of California, and there is a lot to vote on at the state level this November
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions

I have given my vote a lot of thought, and I have also given plenty of thought to what my vote means. I would hope plenty of Republicans who are repulsed by Trump are willing to vote for a third party instead, even if they know that candidate will not win, and I hope plenty of Democrats repulsed by Hillary will vote third party as well. The two parties have really dropped the ball in their nominees, and if no one makes this stand we will only encourage more of the same from the two parties.

I should also note, that while I do plan on voting third party, and it does seem unlikely that any of those third party candidates will win, it would also seem unlikely that Donald Trump would get any electoral college points from my resident state. Yes, if I were living in a crucial battleground state I would think more critically of voting for a third party, but that is also not the case.

Of course voting for a third party candidate would not be a problem anywhere if we had what is known as ranked voting. The best explanation of how the ranked voting system works that I have come across is this video-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0xEaTyCEUA (Maine may pass a ranked voting system, but this would only apply to state level elections)

 

[DOWN]

I think the CIA should be dismantled

oh my god

 

[John Dunbar]

'other' around 10% - those 10% will decide who gets to be the next president.
If those 10% stick with 'other', they'll have made the candidate who gets 42% of the popular vote the next president.

if your vote counts for 10% of all votes then that would be relevant.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Hi fellow Chomskyfriend. Have you read his recent piece with John Halle on Lesser Evil Voting?

It's essentially what I reluctantly agree with. The utilitarian view of electoralism. Basically, if you're in a swing state, vote Democrat. If you're in a for sure safe state, vote third party or nothing at all. And I'm in California so I have the privilege of speaking about shit the way I do. Where are you at? And what do you think about the article?

I'm going to circle back to this article and respond once I've given it a read. About to hop in the shower now and get ready for work. I would imagine he's saying to vote for Hillary if it's anything like his Democracy Now! interview back in May, where he said:

If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for a, say, candidate you prefer, a minority candidate just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump which I think is a devastating prospect for reasons I already mentioned.

Afraid I just can't heed Dr. Chomsky's words on this one. I am in Pennsylvania btw. Hillary has no shot at losing this state I don't think.

 

[Oppo]

"The symbolic value of my vote is more important than the practical value of rights."

bingo

it baffles me

you want to vote for Inanimate Carbon Rod as 3rd party, go ahead, but don't pretend like it'll mean something.

and this

I actually don't believe that Trump would be worse. In fact, I think he'd be better

... is so insane I can hardly believe it. like, your credibility is gone. you may as well say a hamster would be better. risibly ridiculous. you think the demented plutocrat with zero experience will do better than the last Sec. State who had decades. come the fuck on.

 

[Erevador]

I don't know that I've ever heard the phrase "my oppression" uttered completely unironically before.

 

[Dot Matrix]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...her-or-a-deranged-murder-clown-20160729111599

HILLARY Clinton should have smiled more during her speech, according to a man who may now vote for a demented orange clown instead.

 

[Fliesen]

if your vote counts for 10% of all votes then that would be relevant.

oh, you're really arguing "well it's just one vote, right?"

The (by now, annulled) results of the 2nd round of voting for the Austrian president had the winning candidate lead by only 30.000 votes...

out of 6,382,507 eligible voters.

every. vote. counts.

 

[Maledict]

Again, I don't think you understand how changing party platforms works Cad. The democrats have already written you off - and rightly so.

You don't change a party platform by shifting to another party. If you want a greater focus on the issues important to you you need to be active and involved in democratic politics at the local level and beyond. uou have to be in the party to change it.

Do you think on any level, at any meeting, *ever*, the democrats have thought about how to attract voters who voted for Johnson in 3012? Because I can guarantee you they haven't.

(You also need to understand that the libertarian party is far closer to the republicans than democrats -
If any party is going to think about how to take libertarian voters it's Rs not Ds).

 

[John Dunbar]

oh, you're really arguing "well it's just one vote, right?"

The (by now, annulled) results of the 2nd round of voting for the Austrian president had the winning candidate lead by only 30.000 votes...

out of 6,382,507 eligible voters.

every. vote. counts.

and what difference would it have made if they had led by 30,001 or 29,999?

edit: and it was by 30,863 votes. if every vote counts, why did you say 30,000 instead of the exact figure? because it doesn't matter.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I voted Obama in '08, Johnson in '12, and now am planning on Johnson this election. Close to straight ticket Democrat downballot. I don't know how any better to signal that I'm persuadable but you're gonna have to do better.

Kind of proves my point, doesn't it.

I said you won't vote incumbent. Your voting track record (which I thank you for honestly providing) proves it.

You're saying you're persuadable, but stances like "eliminate the CIA" are far fetched & outside of what you call the Overton Window. It's hard for me & others in this thread to seriously view you as persuadable at all. It's hard for anyone in the major parties to take your concerns seriously.

 

[Torokil]

Fucking lol at people saying "a vote for Johnson is throwing your vote away!"

Unless you live in the 7-8 real swing states your presidential vote literally doesn't matter. You should still vote in local elections because some crazy shit is bound to happen there.

I live in NC and am going to the polls this November primarily to get Pat Mccrory out. I'll give Hillary a vote while I'm there though.

 

[KRod-57]

I believe the fear is related to herd immunity. You see, some people cannot be vaccinated because they are allergic to vaccines. If it is a choice for others not to be vaccinated it put does people at risk, but also increases the chance for diseases to bypass the vaccines. That is at least how I've understood it.

Currently there are no states with mandatory vaccinations. The closest thing we have to mandatory vaccinations are in Mississippi and West Virginia, who do not allow religious exceptions for parents enrolling their children in public schools.

 

[Feep]

and what difference would it have made if they had led by 30,001 or 29,999?

edit: and it was by 30,863 votes. if every vote counts, why did you say 30,000 instead of the exact figure? because it doesn't matter.

Because you do not exist in a vacuum. Votes count because large numbers of people think the same as you do.

Yes, it is very unlikely that your vote will swing an election. But a million people, effectively, are mirroring your thoughts. And a million votes can absolutely swing an election.

Go vote.

 

[Malfunky]

I'm going to circle back to this article and respond once I've given it a read. About to hop in the shower now and get ready for work. I would imagine he's saying to vote for Hillary if it's anything like his Democracy Now! interview back in May, where he said:

If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for a, say, candidate you prefer, a minority candidate just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump which I think is a devastating prospect for reasons I already mentioned.

Afraid I just can't heed Dr. Chomsky's words on this one. I am in Pennsylvania btw. Hillary has no shot at losing this state I don't think.

Yeah, it's essentially the same argument with more detailed reasoning behind it.

I understand where you're coming from. I agree with most of it. But I believe that yours and my own perspective would change if we were actually faced with the anxiety that Trump could take our respective states. Trump is a vicious, terrible human being galvanizing the vicious, terrible undercurrents of our society. Clinton is a criminal, no doubt. But so is mostly everybody else who gets to that level in politics. That's just status-quo right there.

So that's what we're dealing with. The US will remain one of the largest perpetrators of economic and literal violence around the world regardless of who is president. So when it's status-quo versus right-wing nut job, I think the utilitarian vote is at least something to consider.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

and what difference would it have made if they had led by 30,001 or 29,999?

What if 30.000 other people think like you and just don't care. I just don't understand the "My vote doesn't matter anyway so whatever brah" attitude. Yes, your vote is only one vote. That's the idea behind it. That is literally how it should work.

 

[platocplx]

Waste of a vote. And seriously you lack any grasp of what even matters in govt. Legislation. So unless your 3rd party people are making REAL policy changes at that level voting for president is dumb as hell imo. But more power to you.

Reading more of your posts. Yeah whatever man you sound like some conspiracy theorist. Should have known when you use language like shill etc.

 

[Darryl M R]

Do you OP, but voting for a third party in this political climate doesn't seem logical.

And pretending that Hillary is as bad as trump is getting annoying to hear. Yup with Hillary my friends might lose the rights to marry, and have reasonable healthcare.

Shooting yourself in the foot can be seen as a political statement to some, but not to me.

It's your vote though and at this point it is too late to convince people to change their minds.

"The symbolic value of my vote is more important than the practical value of rights."

Right on the money

 

[Redd]

I think the CIA should be dismantled and that anyone who has ever worked for it should be barred from holding a position of public trust ever again. There's probably some room for prosecutions, too, starting with a few presidents.

That's not smart. Well it's your vote. Vote however you want.

 

[Ekai]

I actually don't believe that Drumpf would be worse. In fact, I think he'd be better.

I'm sorry butt whut. As someone in the LGBT spectrum, as someone who is anti-war, as someone who is far left in economics, as someone who believes in science, etc. etc. etc. a Drumpf presidency terrifies me. The RNC platform is the farthest right it's been in pretty much ever. The DNC platform is the most progressive it's ever been thanks to Bernie. It's literally night and day. The Republicans want to legalize torture of us in the LGBT spectrum. The Republicans embrace war. The Republicans want to screw over the middle-class still. The Republicans don't give a fuck about climate change. etc. etc. etc. And they would take us down a path that would take decades to fix with the SC on the line. Progressive politics will be fucked. Voting Democrat is our only chance to ensure progressive politics not only live on but thrive. They're actually pushing the down-ticket for once. It's amazing. I sincerely hope the down-ticket is actually filled.

I far preferred Bernie and very much did not like Hillary's positions on foreign policy, LGBT rights or the economy. But Bernie pulled her somewhat leftward on the economy. LGBT rights is still a toss-up for me. And foreign policy is still the one area I'm none to happy with Dems in. That said, their approach to the matter is still miles better than the Republican approach of: "let our allies suffer and potentially cause another WW". Hillary actually has experience with other world leaders. It's not a standing ovation for how Hillary is in foreign policy but she at least isn't Drumpf. Drumpf's experience is getting triggered to anger over the slightest thing on twitter. And lying in bed with Putin. And embracing far-right wing fascist ideology such as that espoused by Hitler. And etc. etc. etc.

I've made it clear before I can't in full good-conscience support Hillary. And I honestly still can't. Particularly on foreign policy. That's really the biggest thing for me that clashes starkly with my anti-war views. I've also made it clear numerous times that I feel the two-party system silences minority voices. I still fear, and for fairly justified reasons, that trans individuals will be thrown under the bus yet again. We have been for decades now within the LGBT community itself. That's not even getting into politics either which is a whole other mess. But for my own existence/happiness (and the gamble that Democrats actually care about trans-people now. Hillary supporters sure haven't convinced me of that but Hillary herself is very very slowly working on it......) and the happiness of millions of others be they LGBT, AA, hispanic, other racial minorities, muslim, sikh, other religious minorities, another woman, men, etc. etc. etc. I'm not going to even chance giving a vote to anyone but the Democrats.

I don't particularly like Democrats after this election cycle (my issues lie more so with individuals who vote Democrat than the Democrats themselves, tbh) but the only time I would ever think to vote third party is when I know that third party has any shot at winning. As it stands, the Democrats are the only ones with views that align anywhere near my own that have a shot of winning. A protest vote doesn't get Democrats to listen. Doing something like what Bernie did, getting a good 40%+ of the primary vote does start to get Democrats to listen. And the Republicans. God, the Republicans. They are my antithesis. That's really the friendliest way I can put my view on the Republicans.

 

[thegoosen]

If specific actions by Hillary or the Democratic Party are bothering you, you need to find a way to be political active and show your concerns.
Voting itself means shit for your specific agenda, your vote must go to people who will more likely be open about your concerns when they run the executive branch of the federal government.
Wasting your vote to candidates who have no chance of getting anything from the votes is nothing more than dumping your sheet right into the trash.

 

[SteveMeister]

Clinton is a criminal, no doubt.

There's a tremendous amount of doubt about that. She's accused of a lot, but very little if anything has come to light when she's been investigated for it. When she's been charged, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced, then there will be no doubt that she's a criminal. Until then it's opinion, not fact. The mere fact that she hasn't been indicted means there's doubt that she's a criminal.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

Voting for someone you know is not going to win is the very definition of throwing away your vote.

And yes, in a two horse race, when you are not voting for one, you are voting for the other. The names on the ballot don't change that.

If you are happy with that, then I don't see the problem. So what if your vote is technically a vote that benefits trump. you can still be voting for what and who matters to you. It's still your choice.

Aren't you supposed to vote based on principles lmao?

 

[ReaperXL7]

I do see it as kind of a garbage situation in which your forced to vote for someone you don't like just so that someone you dislike more doesn't gain power that they aren't qualified to have. I genuinely wish a third party candidate had a chance at becoming POTUS but I just don't see it in my lifetime.

That said I refuse to see Trump take office so Hiliary is the only realistic option.

 

[DragonSworne]

why pick the presidential election to cast a protest vote that is only going to reward and embolden Republican's terribly hateful policies?

 

[Korey]

The worst part is that there are people in government fighting tirelessly for YOUR rights that need Hillary to win. People working so that you won't be treated as a second class citizen.

What a slap in the face it is to those people when you effectively give your vote to the other side.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

The sad truth about this election is that people probably didn't learn "Oh, we need to be smarter and do something about these issues" but "Oh, we don't actually need facts and arguments. We can just say shit and as long as it sounds good idiots will vote for us"

Edit: Come to think of it, they probably already knew that...

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Again, I don't think you understand how changing party platforms works Cad. The democrats have already written you off - and rightly so.

You don't change a party platform by shifting to another party. If you want a greater focus on the issues important to you you need to be active and involved in democratic politics at the local level and beyond. uou have to be in the party to change it.

Do you think on any level, at any meeting, *ever*, the democrats have thought about how to attract voters who voted for Johnson in 3012? Because I can guarantee you they haven't.

(You also need to understand that the libertarian party is far closer to the republicans than democrats -
If any party is going to think about how to take libertarian voters it's Rs not Ds).

I'm canvassing for my state's democratic nominee for attorney general. You don't have to lecture me about engagement at the state and local level. I'm really hoping that Bernie manages to parlay his success into some Tea Party-like primary challenges for insufficiently progressive candidates, and if there ever is one that's local to me I'll be canvassing there, too.

I assume that democrats are intelligent, want to win elections, and will notice when nominating a milquetoast centrist war criminal costs or nearly costs them the easiest electoral layup in American history. If Johnson gets anything like the 10% he's polling at right now, then yeah, I'm expecting both parties to figure out how they can bring them back into the fold, or at least they will if they like winning.

Kind of proves my point, doesn't it.

I said you won't vote incumbent. Your voting track record (which I thank you for honestly providing) proves it.

You're saying you're persuadable, but stances like "eliminate the CIA" are far fetched & outside of what you call the Overton Window. It's hard for me & others in this thread to seriously view you as persuadable at all. It's hard for anyone in the major parties to take your concerns seriously.

I'm well aware that abolishing the CIA is not exactly likely to happen anytime soon. That's why I'm not holding out for a candidate that's going to do it. My views are extreme, but I'm willing to support the lesser of two evils if they're willing to meet me halfway. If the Obama administration had, for example, established something like the FISA courts for PRISM and some kind of review process for using the drone program on American citizens (and hadn't, y'know, killed someone because they had the wrong dad), that wouldn't have been perfect, but it would be good enough for me.

 

[WedgeX]

A full quarter of the OP feels like a fundamental misunderstanding of the roll of Secretary of State within the Cabinet.

 

[Ferulci]

As a French, I'm truly terrorized by the idea of Trump having nuclear codes, how it will inspire far right in Europe and how his temper/sociopathy is the last thing a powerful country needs.
While I surely can understand why people dont like Hillary, the argument that both of them are equally bad is ludicrous. We cant sugarcoat it or tell "be nice with me or I wont listen"
One is a incompetent racist bigot. The other isnt.
One could be a threat to the world and set the world back 40 years ago. The other isnt.
It's as simple as that. And strangely enough, the whole world can see it except for (a part of) America.
There is a time pushing your own (and very valid) agendas, during local elections , with lobby and groups. But this November, any votes that doesnt help to stop Trump is helping him. Which is like cutting your nose to spit your face.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

He's not anti-vaccine. He's pro-choice.

Oh, so he is pro-epidemic. Gotcha.

 

[Rayis]

The naive idealism of third-party voters really rubs me the wrong way, they're missing the forest for the trees.

 

[John Dunbar]

What if 30.000 other people think like you and just don't care. I just don't understand the "My vote doesn't matter anyway so whatever brah" attitude. Yes, your vote is only one vote. That's the idea behind it. That is literally how it should work.

exactly. that is why it is nonsense to say someone is throwing away their vote when voting for whoever they please (or not voting at all).

and how would your voting make the other 30,000 people vote any differently? it's just statistical noise. if you can find a way to convince 30,000 people to vote a certain way that might indeed be meaningful, but your own vote still is not.

 

[KevinCow]

This election isn't about voting for who you like anymore.

This election is about stopping a fascist from becoming one of the most powerful people on the planet.

This election has exactly two realistic outcomes: Hillary being president, or Trump being president. I'm sorry, fans of third-parties, but they have no real chance.

Voting for a third-party or not voting is basically saying, "Eh, I don't really care who wins."

Voting for Hillary is decisively saying, "I do not want Trump to be President."

Hillary, at worst, would be a bad president who we can replace in 4 years.

Trump, at worst, could lead to worldwide nuclear war.

I honestly don't see how there's any other option besides voting for Hillary, whether you like her or not.

 

[Orniletter]

Agree with OP and The Exploder on this issue. I also recognize that voting 3rd party takes away from Hillary. Won't make me vote for her though. I'm not voting for a candidate I dislike.


It seems like Clinton supporters give more crap to third party voters than they do to Trump voters.

Trump voters are beyond redemption.

Third party voters should have the mental capacity to assess their situation and recognize that they are making a bad choice.

I have to echo the opinion of my fellow Europeans: Just get fucking over yourselves and vote for goddamn Clinton.

I can't comprehend how out of this world infantile some of you are.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Do you guys ever get tired of the "this candidate doesn't 100% represent me or my views?" crap?

 

[Apathy]

The naive idealism of third-party voters really rubs me the wrong way, they're missing the forest for the trees.

If Americans had a proper third or more party that actually contested then there would be merit to the op's post, but face it, the US is a two party system. Whether you like it or not, and it's not changing.

In a situation like this election where you got one of the worst possible candidates in trump, someone voting third party is throwing their vote away and possibly giving the presidency to an idiot that would make America worse (don't kid yourself saying he won't, supreme court justices appointments alone will have a huge impact on how bad it will hurt the US in the long run).

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I'm sorry butt whut. As someone in the LGBT spectrum, as someone who is anti-war, as someone who is far left in economics, as someone who believes in science, etc. etc. etc. a Drumpf presidency terrifies me. The RNC platform is the farthest right it's been in pretty much ever. The DNC platform is the most progressive it's ever been thanks to Bernie. It's literally night and day. The Republicans want to legalize torture of us in the LGBT spectrum. The Republicans embrace war. The Republicans want to screw over the middle-class still. The Republicans don't give a fuck about climate change. etc. etc. etc. And they would take us down a path that would take decades to fix with the SC on the line. Progressive politics will be fucked. Voting Democrat is our only chance to ensure progressive politics not only live on but thrive. They're actually pushing the down-ticket for once. It's amazing. I sincerely hope the down-ticket is actually filled.

I far preferred Bernie and very much did not like Hillary's positions on foreign policy, LGBT rights or the economy. But Bernie pulled her somewhat leftward on the economy. LGBT rights is still a toss-up for me. And foreign policy is still the one area I'm none to happy with Dems in. That said, their approach to the matter is still miles better than the Republican approach of: "let our allies suffer and potentially cause another WW". Hillary actually has experience with other world leaders. It's not a standing ovation for how Hillary is in foreign policy but she at least isn't Drumpf. Drumpf's experience is getting triggered to anger over the slightest thing on twitter. And lying in bed with Putin. And embracing far-right wing fascist ideology such as that espoused by Hitler. And etc. etc. etc.

I've made it clear before I can't in full good-conscience support Hillary. And I honestly still can't. Particularly on foreign policy. That's really the biggest thing for me that clashes starkly with my anti-war views. I've also made it clear numerous times that I feel the two-party system silences minority voices. I still fear, and for fairly justified reasons, that trans individuals will be thrown under the bus yet again. We have been for decades now within the LGBT community itself. That's not even getting into politics either which is a whole other mess. But for my own existence/happiness (and the gamble that Democrats actually care about trans-people now. Hillary supporters sure haven't convinced me of that but Hillary herself is very very slowly working on it......) and the happiness of millions of others be they LGBT, AA, hispanic, other racial minorities, muslim, sikh, other religious minorities, another woman, men, etc. etc. etc. I'm not going to even chance giving a vote to anyone but the Democrats.

I don't particularly like Democrats after this election cycle (my issues lie more so with individuals who vote Democrat than the Democrats themselves, tbh) but the only time I would ever think to vote third party is when I know that third party has any shot at winning. As it stands, the Democrats are the only ones with views that align anywhere near my own that have a shot of winning. A protest vote doesn't get Democrats to listen. Doing something like what Bernie did, getting a good 40%+ of the primary vote does start to get Democrats to listen. And the Republicans. God, the Republicans. They are my antithesis. That's really the friendliest way I can put my view on the Republicans.

I don't disagree. The context was talking specifically about civil liberties, or more narrowly, the rule of law as it's applied to domestic surveillance and the war on terror.

 

[Messofanego]

What to do? People are scared. People don't understand what causes this spike in autism, rare instances have happened in world history were vaccines have been disasterous. I think the grip of fear is understandable, and the misttrust of government at some level is a healthy critical response to the status quo, but I also think there is an element of hysteria and irrational fearmongering.

Better diagnosis caused a "rise" in autism prevalence. If people are not understanding that, there's no reasoning on their antixavver path. It might work for other cases but this is one where being anti-establishment is just dangerous and misguided.

 

[Malfunky]

There's a tremendous amount of doubt about that. She's accused of a lot, but very little if anything has come to light when she's been investigated for it. When she's been charged, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced, then there will be no doubt that she's a criminal. Until then it's opinion, not fact. The mere fact that she hasn't been indicted means there's doubt that she's a criminal.

I don't mean literally. I'm not a Berniebro or right winger. I don't care if she's indicted. I don't care if she goes to jail. None of that will happen. Never does.

I mean she's a damn criminal. Ethically. Morally. She's done reprehensible things. Things that were perfectly legal. Things like this. As did Obama. And Bush. And her husband. And the rest of that line. The political elite of the United States are a dirty breed. It's sort of a requirement for running the place. You have to get your hands dirty and you need to be dirty already to even consider that. And that's the horrible reality of it all, that that's the way the world works. You're probably going to disagree with this analysis, which is perfectly understandable. So with due respect, I have no interest in explaining it further right now. I was engaging with a person who displayed some familiarity with my ideological background. The dude with the Noam Chomsky avatar.

Rest assured, though, regardless of my feelings on the matter: she's the one who I prefer wins in this dogfight.

 

[spiderman123]

vote for who you want.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

I'm canvassing for my state's democratic nominee for attorney general. You don't have to lecture me about engagement at the state and local level. I'm really hoping that Bernie manages to parlay his success into some Tea Party-like primary challenges for insufficiently progressive candidates, and if there ever is one that's local to me I'll be canvassing there, too.

I assume that democrats are intelligent, want to win elections, and will notice when nominating a milquetoast centrist war criminal costs or nearly costs them the easiest electoral layup in American history. If Johnson gets anything like the 10% he's polling at right now, then yeah, I'm expecting both parties to figure out how they can bring them back into the fold, or at least they will if they like winning.



I'm well aware that abolishing the CIA is not exactly likely to happen anytime soon. That's why I'm not holding out for a candidate that's going to do it. My views are extreme, but I'm willing to support the lesser of two evils if they're willing to meet me halfway. If the Obama administration had, for example, established something like the FISA courts for PRISM and some kind of review process for using the drone program on American citizens (and hadn't, y'know, killed someone because they had the wrong dad), that wouldn't have been perfect, but it would be good enough for me.

If it wasn't that issue you would have found another. People fed up with the two party system always manage to move that goalpost one more time.

 

[encephalon]

If you live in a safe state like California and you want to move the needle, fine, protest vote away. But the Democratic party is not threatened by a third party candidate. You are not going to have your voice heard by the Democratic party for doing so. Bernie, maybe. But not Johnson.

And on civil liberties, the democrats have done nothing but defect for eight years

Excuse me?

 

[Slayven]

People only care about 3rd party when it relates to the president. They never try shit on the local or state level. That is why they never go anywhere.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Wouldn't disabled people suffer the most in a libertarian society? I'm trying to actually think of a group who would do worst.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Everyone bitching about the OP's stance should support Instant Runoff Voting locally and country-wide so we can stop having threads like this and people can be free to vote for who they think would best represent their interests.

 

[Darryl M R]

Support who you want but don't say it is for the greater good when you are putting others at risk. Just say it is your vote and you do what you want.

 

[Malfunky]

People only care about 3rd party when it relates to the president. They never try shit on the local or state level. That is why they never go anywhere.

Well, I mean, it's the same sort of thing with Democrats. People are only energized when it's a presidential election. Midterm turnouts ain't so great, you know. Democrats and Republicans just have the privilege of being the two defaults. All they need is someone to check the D or R box next to their name and win a measly majority. It takes a hell of a lot more effort to start from scratch.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Good luck, OP. I've tried having this discussion on this forum, but the notion of lesser evilism is too ingrained. Like, I even support Hillary as the most competent candidate. But the idea that votes are invalid if they don't "win" is childish, and democracy is meaningless if people don't use their vote as their voice.