I am kind of curious about everyone's thoughts about the Libertarian Party's chances this year. With Trump and Clinton both with extremely high negatives, and Gary Johnson polling at 13%, just 2% shy of the threshold needed to join the debates, could we possibly see a libertarian president this election cycle? And if so, is that a good thing? There are many aspects of the LP that I like, however the foreign policy part of their platform is a concern.
Thoughts?
No way in hell will the USA see a so-called "Libertarian" president this election cycle (or any in the near future). And that's not because the so-called "Libertarian" Party's ideology is ludicrous. It's because a) their beliefs are still too far outside the mainstream to appeal to a large enough number of 'average' Americans (who tend to view themselves as moderates) and b) because the two main parties have a stranglehold on the system, making it virtually impossible for a third party to have a reasonable chance of success. Of course, the fact that the USA has a first-past-the-post system doesn't help - those tend to create two-party systems over time.
What might happen (if enough people actually end up voting Libertarian and/or Green) is some worthwhile, sustainable growth for the parties going forward. If they do well enough (and if they can keep the voters past this election cycle), they might be able to force their way into the next election's debates. And maybe they'll have more growth at the State and local level.
The most recent polls have Johnson ranging between 5-10%, which is too low to be included in debates. No third party candidate has polled higher than 15% since Perot in the 90s, and he had a lot more support, influence and money than Johnson. Additionally, third party support falls off on election day, so Johnson will likely only get a fraction of what he's polling at.
But he could do well enough to impact the election. Nader only got 2% of the vote in 2000, and it was enough to cost Gore some states, giving Bush the electoral victory. With Johnson, it's hard to tell who he'd "spoil" more at this point. The polls show he usually hurts Clinton more, which seems counterintuitive as Libertarians usually draw from Republican-leaning voters.
It will make a difference this election year, as it does every election year.
The libertarian party is the ONLY party growing. Will Gary win? Probably not. I'll still vote for him.
The libertarian party is following the playbook of the Republican party from when they destroyed the whig party. They aren't just a 1 candidate party like the green party, if Gary and weld weren't running, it would be someone else.
There's also already many libertarian's in elected positions now, including in Florida.
https://lpf.org/elected-officials/
Not to mention all the recent GOP defectors that have joined the LP this year.
It takes time, but we're chiseling away.... :)
Quote from: coredumped on August 02, 2016, 05:46:08 PM
They aren't just a 1 candidate party like the green party, if Gary and weld weren't running, it would be someone else.
I don't know where you get the idea that the Green Party is a "one candidate party". This is only the second time Stein has been the GP presidential nominee. And there are over 100 Greens in elected office around the USA.
If Stein wasn't running, it would be someone else. They've fielded a candidate in every presidential election since 1996 (and they'd been competing in Congressional elections before that).
What I meant was Jill *IS* the green party.
They're a small party, even compared to the libertarian party. They're not even on 25 ballots. They've got a long way to go. I wish them luck, I like having another option.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 02, 2016, 05:36:00 PM
The most recent polls have Johnson ranging between 5-10%, which is too low to be included in debates. No third party candidate has polled higher than 15% since Perot in the 90s, and he had a lot more support, influence and money than Johnson. Additionally, third party support falls off on election day, so Johnson will likely only get a fraction of what he's polling at.
But he could do well enough to impact the election. Nader only got 2% of the vote in 2000, and it was enough to cost Gore some states, giving Bush the electoral victory. With Johnson, it's hard to tell who he'd "spoil" more at this point. The polls show he usually hurts Clinton more, which seems counterintuitive as Libertarians usually draw from Republican-leaning voters.
They just announced a "15 for 15%" initiative on FB...apparently in at least some polls, he is at 13%. They are asking for $15 donations to get them to the magic 15% mark.
I would really like to see both Gary and Jill on the debate stage- it is such a weird political year anyway and all.
Quote from: coredumped on August 02, 2016, 06:30:59 PM
What I meant was Jill *IS* the green party.
They're a small party, even compared to the libertarian party. They're not even on 25 ballots. They've got a long way to go. I wish them luck, I like having another option.
You do realise that she is the
presumptive nominee, right? She has actually had to campaign for the nomination (there is one other candidate, but Stein has beaten him in all but one primary).
The Green Party is a young party, but as I mentioned, they've got over 100 people in office - I believe the LP have 135. So not too bad, considering.
I am not a GP supporter, but I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time. Or that Stein is somehow 'stealing' support that rightfully should go to Clinton.
People have every right to vote how they want - but it seems that the only people on Facebook who are telling me how to vote are the people who are trying to force me and others to vote for Clinton. I don't see Green Party activists abusing people and calling them all sorts of names because they won't vote Green.
Quote from: Houseboat Mike on August 02, 2016, 07:15:28 PM
I would really like to see both Gary and Jill on the debate stage- it is such a weird political year anyway and all.
That could only be a good thing. More voices are needed. People need to feel like they have a choice.
Quotethe fact that the USA has a first-past-the-post system doesn't help - those tend to create two-party systems over time
This is why third (or fourth) parties are likely not worth the time.
They can destabilize an election, then fade, e.g. Nader '00. (How many people who voted for him then are happy w/ the results?)
Or they may hope to be outflanked by one of the two mainstream parties' shifting ideology. (See Libertarians' influence on the GOP).
For rational actors, it is hard to see why voting for a 3rd party makes sense.
Quote from: bencrix on August 03, 2016, 09:28:31 AM
For rational actors, it is hard to see why voting for a 3rd party makes sense.
Well, I don't eat meat because I don't like the idea of killing animals. But I appreciate that my actions alone won't really save animal lives.
And it is unlikely that a third party will gain traction, but it's not unheard of (e.g. the Republicans in the USA or Labour in the UK).
Quote from: bencrix on August 03, 2016, 09:28:31 AM
For rational actors, it is hard to see why voting for a 3rd party makes sense.
It sends a message that you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates. Personally, I like the fact that I can vote against Hillary AND Trump! For me, there is no "lesser of 2 evils," they're both horrible options.
Plus, like I said, these things take time. The whig party wasn't destroyed over night. The party is on the right track, 15% with midwest voters:
(http://i.imgur.com/H2fyEVe.jpg)
By the way, for those interested, CNN will be hosting the second Libertarian town hall
tonight:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/libertarian-town-hall-gary-johnson-william-weld/
QuoteWell, I don't eat meat because I don't like the idea of killing animals. But I appreciate that my actions alone won't really save animal lives.
I get your point - there are cases when rather than act rationally, we may choose to stand on principle.
That said, your analogy isn't quite apt and I think illustrates why "standing on principle" in the general election is not a good stand to take.
You make choices about what to eat 3 or more times a day (> 1,000 times per year) often directly influencing others (who you cook for, purchase food for, etc.). When you forego eating meat over time, you may actually save an animals' life on the margin.
You vote 0.25 times a year, with the ability to influence others only indirectly. When you vote for a third party, because of the way the electoral system works, the outcomes are a) it makes no difference, or b) you cause one of the two dominant parties to lose when they otherwise would have won.
In case (b), there is no mechanism for your principles to be represented in the resulting administration, and you risk empowering ideologies hostile to your principles. There is a chance over time that the penalized party adopts some of your principles, but the cycles are long w/ many intervening contingencies.
It would be as if by refusing to eat meat, you risk increasing the meat consumption of your friends and neighbors.
You are better off supporting 3rd parties at the local / state / congressional level. I think that is largely the 3rd parties' strategy, by the way.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 01:48:14 AM
I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.
It
is a waste...on the national level. Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and
then think about running a presidential candidate. The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will
never win a national election.
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 01:48:14 AM
I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.
It is a waste...on the national level. Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate. The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.
So voting for someone that you align with is wasting your vote? No, it isn't. It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.
QuoteIt's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.
The point is, when voting for a 3rd party in a general election, it's not win or lose. It's more like lose or lose really badly (w/ respect to the politics that motivated you to vote in the first place).
That said, it might not be a waste if the value you derive from standing on principle is greater than the value you likely lose from the election results.
If you live in a deep blue or red state, at the end of the day, the stakes are pretty low. If you happen to live in Florida - the stakes are pretty high.
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 01:48:14 AM
I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.
It is a waste...on the national level. Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate. The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.
Ha. Something we absolutely agree on. I just posted something similar on another thread.
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 01:48:14 AM
I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.
It is a waste...on the national level. Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate. The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.
1000% agree. Libertarians are doing a much better job building out infrastructure, compared to other 3rd parties, but it's still at least 2-3 cycles of getting people elected to Congress away before a legit run for President can be made. All politics are local in this country. It's a principle often forgotten, but no less true than it was at the beginning of it all.
Libertarian ideas are also already represented w/in the GOP via the "Freedom Caucus" (FKA Tea Party).
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 01:48:14 AM
I get tired of those who say voting for a third party is a waste of time.
It is a waste...on the national level. Third parties need to build their support on the local level, work their way up to the state, get some people elected to Congress, and then think about running a presidential candidate. The way our system is designed, a third-party candidate will never win a national election.
I don't expect you to understand, but if you were a socialist, you might (or a Libertarian, for that matter). 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).
So I don't consider it a waste of time.
That said, I used to vote and I always voted out of fear - with the exception of 1992, when I relatively happily voted for Bill Clinton (my views were a bit more centre left then - I'd have voted for Sanders if he had been running - and Clinton had views on NAFTA and universal health care that I liked). I always chose the "lesser of two evils" in order to prevent some terrible monster from getting into office. That's always the argument used. Trump this year... maybe Cruz in 4 or 8 years. And he's scarier than Trump.
(This is assuming we've not wiped out the human race by then).
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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).
See stephendare's post @ 12:25:14 PM. If sticking to your principles results in the candidate who is farthest from those principles being elected, what have you gained?
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the system you have, not the one you wish you had.
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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).
See stephendare's post @ 12:25:14 PM. If sticking to your principles results in the candidate who is farthest from those principles being elected, what have you gained?
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the system you have, not the one you wish you had.
I think it's a wash.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
And I am voting in the system I have - a system that allows multiple parties.
Quote from: Downtown Osprey on August 03, 2016, 02:28:26 PM
So voting for someone that you align with is wasting your vote? No, it isn't. It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.
Downtown Osprey gets it.
And for those of who think it's a waste of time, in my particular case you may have missed what I said earlier: to me Hillary is no worse than Trump. They're both horrible horrible candidates. There's no choice for me. Flip a coin. Luckily, there are other options.
(http://i.imgur.com/mijmdAJ.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2016, 04:01:12 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:46:53 PM
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 03:30:44 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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).
See stephendare's post @ 12:25:14 PM. If sticking to your principles results in the candidate who is farthest from those principles being elected, what have you gained?
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the system you have, not the one you wish you had.
I think it's a wash.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
And I am voting in the system I have - a system that allows multiple parties.
And your vote will be as useful as any of the ones cast by Ralph Nader in 2000. Its a good thing that losing to W made the Dems less corporate though. ;)
Voting for Nader or anyone else is foolish if you think that is going to change one of the major parties. If you voted for Nader in order to make the Democrats "less corporate," then you're foolish.
Clearly, I'm not going to convince you or Finehoe. If it helps you sleep at night, know that I am not registered and can't "waste my vote" in this election.
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2016, 04:20:42 PM
Have to take it seriously Adam. Shelton spilled a whole lot of ink encouraging people to send a message to the two party losercrats in 1999 Folio.
The Florida election was decided by 500 votes. This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters. The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.
Shelton spills a lot of ink and mostly writes rubbish, IMO. So I have a hard time taking much of anything he writes seriously.
I am not going to vote for a Democrat. I don't think it's a wasted vote, as the outcome is going to suck, regardless.
Quotethe outcome is going to suck, regardless
Hard to see it that way if one was contemplating the green party, for example. There is clearly going to be a differential.
As for libertarians, their ideas are already inculcated in a lot of the maintstream GOP and Trump at least believes he is a character in an Ayn Rand novel. I could see a D victory (particularly if Sanders' influence is enduring) as setting their agenda back too.
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2016, 04:20:42 PM
The Florida election was decided by 500 votes. This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters. The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.
Wow. It's a bit more interesting to read as history as opposed to current events...
http://www.salon.com/2000/11/13/duval/
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2016, 04:20:42 PM
Have to take it seriously Adam. Shelton spilled a whole lot of ink encouraging people to send a message to the two party losercrats in 1999 Folio.
The Florida election was decided by 500 votes. This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters. The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.
I forgot to mention: surely the issue is with the 22k votes that were not allowed, not 5000 people who voted for another party. And what of the Republicans who chose to vote for Nader over Bush? Or the Democrats who voted for Bush. Or maybe those on either side that chose to stay home (I seem to recall the turnout was barely over 50%)? Or the fact that the Supreme Court was really the decider?
http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/
It all shakes out in the end. Perhaps having two parties only would stop this sort of thing happening. Or perhaps we could go with a single-party state, that way we can ensure the correct person get the votes he or she deserves.
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2016, 05:08:24 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 05:03:18 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2016, 04:20:42 PM
Have to take it seriously Adam. Shelton spilled a whole lot of ink encouraging people to send a message to the two party losercrats in 1999 Folio.
The Florida election was decided by 500 votes. This county tossed 22k votes primarily cast by black voters. The 5k people who voted to send a message here in Duval County ended up deciding the fate of the nation.
I forgot to mention: surely the issue is with the 22k votes that were not allowed, not 5000 people who voted for another party. And what of the Republicans who chose to vote for Nader over Bush? Or the Democrats who voted for Bush. Or maybe those on either side that chose to stay home (I seem to recall the turnout was barely over 50%)? Or the fact that the Supreme Court was really the decider?
http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/
It all shakes out in the end. Perhaps having two parties only would stop this sort of thing happening. Or perhaps we could go with a single-party state, that way we can ensure the correct person get the votes he or she deserves.
actually, If you think about it, the folio readers and kids most likely to feel like it was important to send a message to corporatist dems all lived in nice white suburban neighborhoods where their votes were far less likely to get chunked out.
Jville's 22k democratic votes would have decisively settled the election in Gores favor. But the fix was in before that election ever happened. Which made the liberal/left of center abstainers votes so much more weighty.
Perhaps.
I am of the (admittedly unsupported) opinion that Florida was delivered to Bush by his brother and then rubber-stamped by a partisan Supreme Court. Nader or not, Bush was going to get Florida.
I can't prove that.
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 11:29:52 AM
It sends a message that you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates.
Quote from: Downtown Osprey on August 03, 2016, 02:28:26 PM
It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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).
No one has explained what's the advantage of casting your vote in such a way that it results in the candidate who is farthest from your own beliefs and principles being elected, which is virtually always the result in American presidential politics.
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 05:58:13 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 11:29:52 AM
It sends a message that you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates.
Quote from: Downtown Osprey on August 03, 2016, 02:28:26 PM
It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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).
No one has explained what's the advantage of casting your vote in such a way that it results in the candidate who is farthest from your own beliefs and principles being elected, which is virtually always the result in American presidential politics.
I thought I did when I said "Trump or Hillary are equally terrible, toss a coin."
I get that most people think there's a lesser of 2 evils, but for me they're both crap.
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 06:20:11 PM
Quote from: finehoe on August 03, 2016, 05:58:13 PM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 11:29:52 AM
It sends a message that you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates.
Quote from: Downtown Osprey on August 03, 2016, 02:28:26 PM
It's voting for who you truly believe in. Win or lose.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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).
No one has explained what's the advantage of casting your vote in such a way that it results in the candidate who is farthest from your own beliefs and principles being elected, which is virtually always the result in American presidential politics.
I thought I did when I said "Trump or Hillary are equally terrible, toss a coin."
I get that most people think there's a lesser of 2 evils, but for me they're both crap.
Yeah, I'm with you on that. Although I am not 100% certain about their mehodology or results, the link to the political compass website that I posted makes the point better than I can.
But you're not just voting for a person, you're also voting for (or against) the candidate's party's platform. Surely one side of this chart aligns with your own views more so than the other side does:
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13631480_10208300292322775_6602108342400863790_n.jpg?oh=f780c52b66f283a33e71f728de7a8545&oe=582B0E2E)
Both those platforms are bigger government. The only party for smaller government and less military intervention is the LP.
Democrats say less military, but Obama is America's war president, Republicans say smaller government, but they're always in our personal lives.
(http://i.imgur.com/UajPVcBl.jpg)
It's no less accurate than the left-biased graphic above. Tuition "free" education? Sure, nobody pays for it, ignore that $20 trillion debt.
This graphic does align with the party platform btw.
Quote from: stephendare on August 04, 2016, 12:08:11 AM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 11:44:25 PM
It's no less accurate than the left-biased graphic above. Tuition "free" education? Sure, nobody pays for it, ignore that $20 trillion debt.
This graphic does align with the party platform btw.
Ronald Reagan gave it to Californians, coredumped. Its his one great legacy as governor. If California can figure it out, it can be done.
I believe free tuition pre-dated Reagan (it started with the founding of the university system) and I think Reagan actually tried to raise fees. As I understand it, students who attend a state school these days have to pay tuition. They used to just call it something else. But it's not free anymore.
I think the issue Coredumped raised is the idea of having free tuition when there is a massive debt. He may be opposed to free tuition, full stop (it is 'big government' after all). I support free tuition and think it can work - but it clearly cannot work without spending cuts elsewhere and increase taxation (or closing tax loopholes).
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 10:57:44 PM
Both those platforms are bigger government. The only party for smaller government and less military intervention is the LP.
Democrats say less military, but Obama is America's war president, Republicans say smaller government, but they're always in our personal lives.
So continue to vote Libertarian, which I'm sure will result in the change you desire.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 06:49:08 AM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 10:57:44 PM
Both those platforms are bigger government. The only party for smaller government and less military intervention is the LP.
Democrats say less military, but Obama is America's war president, Republicans say smaller government, but they're always in our personal lives.
So continue to vote Libertarian, which I'm sure will result in the change you desire.
Voting Democratic or Republic (or not Libertarian) won't result in the change he desires, either. So, if that's the metric you use to determine whether one is 'wasting' a vote, then clearly voting Democratic or Republican is equally a waste of a vote.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 06:49:08 AM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 10:57:44 PM
Both those platforms are bigger government. The only party for smaller government and less military intervention is the LP.
Democrats say less military, but Obama is America's war president, Republicans say smaller government, but they're always in our personal lives.
So continue to vote Libertarian, which I'm sure will result in the change you desire.
Thanks for your permission to vote however I like. My votes are my own. In the past year I've voted for all 3 parties. I vote for the candidate, not the party.
Adam, your right, tax payer tuition could happen, but not as long as Democrats and Republicans keep us in these endless wars.
Quote from: coredumped on August 04, 2016, 08:16:15 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 08:12:09 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 06:49:08 AM
Quote from: coredumped on August 03, 2016, 10:57:44 PM
Both those platforms are bigger government. The only party for smaller government and less military intervention is the LP.
Democrats say less military, but Obama is America's war president, Republicans say smaller government, but they're always in our personal lives.
So continue to vote Libertarian, which I'm sure will result in the change you desire.
Voting Democratic or Republic (or not Libertarian) won't result in the change he desires, either. So, if that's the metric you use to determine whether one is 'wasting' a vote, then clearly voting Democratic or Republican is equally a waste of a vote.
Thanks for that! My votes are my own. In the past year I've voted for all 3 parties. I vote for the candidate, not the party.
Adam, your right, tax payer tuition could happen, but not as long as Democrats and Republicans keep us in these endless wars.
My issue is that I don't like being lectured about 'wasting' my vote. We all have personal reasons for how we vote.
Note: I am not saying Finehoe or Stephen are 'lecturing' me - this is a forum and I appreciate the debate!
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 did watch the town hall last night. Frankly, I was much more impressed by Weld than Johnson. I also didn't know that W Bush wanted him as his VP before the anti-abortion people shot it down.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 09:14:08 AM
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". :)
Actually, a third party candidate has won the presidency.... fella by the name of Abraham Lincoln ;). There have been several parties throughout the years, it hasnt always been Democrat and Republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States
Quote from: Houseboat Mike on August 04, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
Actually, a third party candidate has won the presidency.... fella by the name of Abraham Lincoln ;). There have been several parties throughout the years, it hasnt always been Democrat and Republican.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm talking about contemporary politics. Even your link begins with the sentence "Throughout most of its history, American politics have been dominated by a two-party system."
No one wants to answer the question, because there is no good answer.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 09:14:08 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 11:08:00 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 09:14:08 AM
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?
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 11:21:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 11:21:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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.
Timely article in today's NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/upshot/third-party-candidates-through-the-years.html
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 11:55:53 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 11:21:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on August 03, 2016, 03:13:59 PM
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.
Quoteit 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.
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?
Quote from: bencrix on August 04, 2016, 01:05:20 PM
Quoteit 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).
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 01:11:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 01:15:03 PM
I guess it depends on Party B.
In what way? They have more positions you agree with than Party C.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 01:18:43 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 01:15:03 PM
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.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 01:11:32 PM
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.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 04, 2016, 01:32:24 PM
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.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 04, 2016, 01:32:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 01:31:21 PM
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.
Quote from: finehoe on August 04, 2016, 02:07:18 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 01:31:21 PM
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.
Of course I'd pick B if someone was pointing a gun at my head. I'm not stupid.
Who would you choose between Hitler or Stalin? Technically, Stalin had more views that were in line with mine (though his track record - and the track record of his party on actually delivering on those view was patchy, at best). But I could never vote for Hitler
or Stalin. Chamberlain for me, I guess.
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 02:36:42 PM
Who would you choose between Hitler or Stalin?
I had to look...
QuoteUntil I wrote this article, no experienced political analyst would doubt that in 1932 Jews voted at least 2 to 1 for the Communist Party.
Which in this story as it turned out, was the same as voting FOR Hitler!
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/09/16/be-careful-what-you-ask-for-the-1932-german-election/
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 04, 2016, 03:02:26 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 04, 2016, 02:36:42 PM
Who would you choose between Hitler or Stalin?
I had to look...
QuoteUntil I wrote this article, no experienced political analyst would doubt that in 1932 Jews voted at least 2 to 1 for the Communist Party.
Which in this story as it turned out, was the same as voting FOR Hitler!
http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2014/09/16/be-careful-what-you-ask-for-the-1932-german-election/
Interesting, though that's not the same. It was a parliamentary election and the Communists got a bunch of seats. As did the Social Democrats (themselves descended from communists). And the Nazis didn't get a majority - so Hitler and his cronies didn't get into power. Hitler ended up being appointed Chancellor by the President, which was the first step in the Nazis gaining power.
That's got to be the first time someone on Metro Jacksonville has linked to a site that carries the tagline "Fighting White Genocide".
Quote from: Tacachale on August 04, 2016, 03:16:02 PM
That's got to be the first time someone on Metro Jacksonville has linked to a site that carries the tagline "Fighting White Genocide".
#alllivesmatter ;)
I didn't even check. Copy & paste into Google...
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 04, 2016, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on August 04, 2016, 03:16:02 PM
That's got to be the first time someone on Metro Jacksonville has linked to a site that carries the tagline "Fighting White Genocide".
#alllivesmatter ;)
I didn't even check. Copy & paste into Google...
You're like the Marco Rubio of Metro Jax.
Too far Adam, too far ;)
Let's try this another way finehoe. You say a vote for Gary or Jill is a vote for Hillary or Trump. I like Gary Johnson, so who do I vote for if I want him to win?
Quote from: coredumped on August 04, 2016, 06:50:25 PM
I like Gary Johnson, so who do I vote for if I want him to win?
My hypothetical example states "it is universally acknowledged that there is no way Candidate A can win". If you truly believe Mr. Johnson can beat the other candidates in this election, then by all means vote for him.
Saw this political cartoon today and thought it applied (somewhat):
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13962687_1487112511315075_2530713884670758966_n.jpg?oh=259e9dc08f0728a4b9a00946a2c508d9&oe=58101E3A)