Will the Libertarian Party actually make a difference this year?

[finehoe]

I purposely phrased my question to elicit a more abstract answer.  Let me try again.

If your vote is based on belief and principle, and you know that a third-party candidate has never won a presidential election in the US, and you know the probability of one doing so in the future is slim-to-none, what do you gain by casting a vote that results in the candidate/party that least reflects those beliefs and principles winning?

Please answer with out using the words "Trump" "Hillary" "Democrat" or "Republican". 

I'll answer your question - though I assumed you were addressing Coredumped, as I've answered this and I've not been mentioning Clinton or Trump in this thread (well, one Hillary Clinton reference to people claiming Stein is stealing votes that are rightly hers and one reference to how I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992).

Anyway...

I would answer your question as follows: you are making a false assumption that one candidate is closer to my views than the other. I posted the following link earlier. You will see where the two main party candidates fit on the chart - and where others have in the past (look at the other charts listed in the left margin):

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

As I said, it's a wash. One candidate is more authoritarian, but slightly less right wing, the other is further to the right, yet slightly more libertarian.

Also, I will rephrase what I said earlier, in plainer language: if you believe in one central ideal - such as the elimination of the capitalist mode of production and its replacement with socialism - you wouldn't see any appreciable difference between the two capitalist candidates representing the two largest (and extremely capitalist) parties.

I can't provide much more of an answer as you're requested I not mention the candidates in the 2016 election.

But the point I'm trying to understand isn't election-specific.  Forget about the 2016 election.  What I want to know (and trying to understand despite your assertion that I can't without being a Socialist), is why would a voter cast any vote in any election if that vote ends up moving things, however slightly, in the opposite direction than that voter would like to see things move?  What is to be gained by that?  If you want to see capitalism dismantled, how is it better to vote for a Socialist candidate who has no chance of winning if it results in the candidate more likely to strengthen capitalism winning?

[Adam White]

If you want to see capitalism dismantled, how is it better to vote for a Socialist candidate who has no chance of winning if it results in the candidate more likely to strengthen capitalism winning?

That's a fundamentally flawed conclusion. Both the Republicans and Democrats will 'strengthen capitalism' equally. Or, more accurately, neither candidate will weaken capitalism.

And that holds true, even if the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders.

[finehoe]

If you want to see capitalism dismantled, how is it better to vote for a Socialist candidate who has no chance of winning if it results in the candidate more likely to strengthen capitalism winning?

That's a fundamentally flawed conclusion. Both the Republicans and Democrats will 'strengthen capitalism' equally. Or, more accurately, neither candidate will weaken capitalism.

And that holds true, even if the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders.

And in the context of this thread, do you foresee the Libertarian Party candidate ushering in a Libertarian paradise should he win?  You're still avoiding the point.

When there are basic, central principles that you hold inviolate and form the basis of your political alignment, you wouldn't want to turn your back on those and vote against those principles just because you only have a choice of two people (both of whom are unacceptable in your eyes).

Are you not "turning your back" on the "inviolate principles" if your vote results in a candidate who moves the polity further away from those principles?

I can understand not voting at all if the two main candidates are distasteful to you, but I can't wrap my head around voting for a third party candidate who kinda/sorta comes closer to your own views, yet results in the winner being the one farthest from your own views.  It doesn't matter if we're talking Trump/Clinton/Johnson or Bush/Gore/Nader or Bush/Clinton/Perot.

[finehoe]

Timely article in today's NYT:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/upshot/third-party-candidates-through-the-years.html

[Adam White]

If you want to see capitalism dismantled, how is it better to vote for a Socialist candidate who has no chance of winning if it results in the candidate more likely to strengthen capitalism winning?

That's a fundamentally flawed conclusion. Both the Republicans and Democrats will 'strengthen capitalism' equally. Or, more accurately, neither candidate will weaken capitalism.

And that holds true, even if the Democratic candidate is Bernie Sanders.

And in the context of this thread, do you foresee the Libertarian Party candidate ushering in a Libertarian paradise should he win?  You're still avoiding the point.

When there are basic, central principles that you hold inviolate and form the basis of your political alignment, you wouldn't want to turn your back on those and vote against those principles just because you only have a choice of two people (both of whom are unacceptable in your eyes).

Are you not "turning your back" on the "inviolate principles" if your vote results in a candidate who moves the polity further away from those principles?

I can understand not voting at all if the two main candidates are distasteful to you, but I can't wrap my head around voting for a third party candidate who kinda/sorta comes closer to your own views, yet results in the winner being the one farthest from your own views.  It doesn't matter if we're talking Trump/Clinton/Johnson or Bush/Gore/Nader or Bush/Clinton/Perot.

Well, I can only say that Clinton (for example) is no closer to my views than Trump. Yes, she might be on some issues - but not all. I mentioned before that it is a wash.

That said, I have voted for something that kinda/sorta comes closer to my views even though I think it is fundamentally flawed - I voted to 'remain' in the recent referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. The EU is liberalism and capitalism writ large - but I viewed staying in and fighting for reforms to be better than leaving. The reason for that was because I am an internationalist, I believe in free movement of people, I believe in workers' rights and environmental protections - all things that are protected explicitly by the EU and would be in immediate danger if the UK were to go it alone (given that we have a very right wing Conservative government with an absolute majority in the Commons). I also oppose TTIP and I honestly believe we have a better chance of killing that in Europe than keeping our UK government from negotiating something even worse directly with the USA.

[bencrix]

it is a wash

Allowing for your unique situation, Adam, it is hard to see how it would be a wash for the "average" follower of the two alternative parties current in this election (Libertarians and Greens), or party alternatives of the past.

For these folks, there is significant downside risk of the sort finehoe has pointed to, despite what your linked graphic implies (assuming you vote in pink or purple state. If you vote in a red or blue state - okay, it won't matter).

Take the Greens for example. Vote Stein and risk Trump, who would like to abolish the EPA and w/draw from international agreements, vs. Clinton, who would likely incrementally build on Obama's executive actions.

[finehoe]

Let's try a new hypothetical that strips out values, which seem to be distracting some of us:

Candidate A most closely aligns with your own views.  Not perfectly, but more so than others.

Candidate B is loathsome, but the party they represent tends to have some positions you agree with, however few those may be.

Candidate C is equally loathsome, but the party they represent tends to have fewer positions you agree with than those of the party of Candidate B.

It is universally acknowledged that there is no way Candidate A can win.  Your voting for Candidate A will almost assuredly result in Candidate C winning.  When (if ever) does it make sense to vote for Candidate A?

[Adam White]

it is a wash

Allowing for your unique situation, Adam, it is hard to see how it would be a wash for the "average" follower of the two alternative parties current in this election (Libertarians and Greens), or party alternatives of the past.

For these folks, there is significant downside risk of the sort finehoe has pointed to, despite what your linked graphic implies (assuming you vote in pink or purple state. If you vote in a red or blue state - okay, it won't matter).

Take the Greens for example. Vote Stein and risk Trump, who would like to abolish the EPA and w/draw from international agreements, vs. Clinton, who would likely incrementally build on Obama's executive actions.

I can't really vouch for anyone else. I can only speak about me, really (though I have tried to hypothesize in my back-and-forth with Finehoe, as I am not a super-left wing socialist).

[Adam White]

Let's try a new hypothetical that strips out values, which seem to be distracting some of us:

Candidate A most closely aligns with your own views.  Not perfectly, but more so than others.

Candidate B is loathsome, but the party they represent tends to have some positions you agree with, however few those may be.

Candidate C is equally loathsome, but the party they represent tends to have fewer positions you agree with than those of the party of Candidate B.

It is universally acknowledged that there is no way Candidate A can win.  Your voting for Candidate A will almost assuredly result in Candidate C winning.  When (if ever) does it make sense to vote for Candidate A?

I guess it depends on Party B.

[finehoe]

I guess it depends on Party B.

In what way?  They have more positions you agree with than Party C.

[Adam White]

I guess it depends on Party B.

In what way?  They have more positions you agree with than Party C.

Well, it depends on what the positions we share are (are they small things or important things), the degree in difference in those positions between parties B and C and, finally, party B's track record.

[BridgeTroll]

Let's try a new hypothetical that strips out values, which seem to be distracting some of us:

Candidate A most closely aligns with your own views.  Not perfectly, but more so than others.

Candidate B is loathsome, but the party they represent tends to have some positions you agree with, however few those may be.

Candidate C is equally loathsome, but the party they represent tends to have fewer positions you agree with than those of the party of Candidate B.

It is universally acknowledged that there is no way Candidate A can win.  Your voting for Candidate A will almost assuredly result in Candidate C winning.  When (if ever) does it make sense to vote for Candidate A?

You left off the "none of the above" option... which is certainly an option I think many will make this year...  many will likely still fill out a ballot but will just leave the Presidential option unchecked. 

[finehoe]

You left off the "none of the above" option...

I left it out because I already stated I think that is a valid choice.  What I'm trying to discern is when/why people think it makes sense to knowingly vote for a candidate that can't win when that may result in the voters least favorite option being the winner.

[Adam White]

You left off the "none of the above" option...

I left it out because I already stated I think that is a valid choice.  What I'm trying to discern is when/why people think it makes sense to knowingly vote for a candidate that can't win when that may result in the voters least favorite option being the winner.

Another point - one which doesn't apply in the USA, so it's only so relevant - is that in the UK, a candidate loses his or her deposit if he/she polls less than 5%. I had a debate about this with a guy last year - I live in a very safe Conservative seat. I voted Labour because I wanted to stop UKIP coming in second (to no avail). I was told I should've at least voted Green (my preferred choice of the candidates in my constituency) in order to help her try to get her deposit back.

[finehoe]

Well, it depends on what the positions we share are (are they small things or important things), the degree in difference in those positions between parties B and C and, finally, party B's track record.

Okay, I'll stop now.  You're just splitting hairs. Small things, big things, competence, who has the best looking candidates, it doesn't matter.  Party B is the one you like better; the one that if someone was holding a gun to your head and said "either pull the lever for B or C or I'll blow your brains out" you would pick.