Under what circumstances is it not wasteful to vote third party in a US National election?

[Juma]

"You take that bet"?

You willingly risk having a raving baby as president?

Yes, I'll take the bet that if Trump wins we won't have a nuclear holocaust.

How much you want to put on it?

It's actually a no-lose bet for me. If I win I get to collect. If I lose I'll be dead from a nuclear firestorm when they blast Cape Canaveral so I won't need to pay out.

You realize how mad that post is, dont you?

 

[ksen]

Yes, I'll take the bet that if Trump wins we won't have a nuclear holocaust.

How much you want to put on it?

It's actually a no-lose bet for me. If I win I get to collect. If I lose I'll be dead from a nuclear firestorm when they blast Cape Canaveral so I won't need to pay out.

You realize how mad that post is, dont you?

Not as mad as the post that precipitated this part of the discussion.

Guys, the "omg, he'll start a nucluar armageddon!!11!" was already done back in the 60s. There's enough against Trump that we ought not have to go to power level 9000 hyperbole.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Voting is a contrivance of man. The laws that govern the various ways we vote, that shape our patterns of voting, are also contrivances. I think the idea of a "Law" mystifies the process, leading people to think in terms of a force that naturally happens and is out of their control.

However, human behavior and thought often show regularities, and regularities are what's called "laws of nature".

But the use of the term DL can conjure images of powers outside the scope of man leading people to think there is nothing they can do to change things.

This is not true for everything about voting is within the control of the people doing the voting since everything about voting is a contrivance of human beings. So I think the idea of DL is meaningless at its best and deceptive at its worst.

AthenaAwakened, what is your explanation for the regularities that Maurice Duverger and others have observed? Do you think that it's a big fat coincidence? Or do you think that it's some kind of weird whim that voters and politicians have?

People behave in determined ways in response to the environment. The environment when it comes to voting is one totally within our control. So the choice is not in your response, but how you mold the environment to which you react.

Think of it like this. Every time you enter your kitchen, you sweat and feel uncomfortable. The thermostat in the kitchen is set at 98 degrees F. Yes, every time you enter that room, you will sweat and you will be uncomfortable. However, you can change this by lowering the thermostat. It is totally within your control. If you choose not to lower the temp, the results are just that, results of a choice you made to put yourself in an environment that you don't like.

Every four years, we get to vote for a roster of candidates, the majority of which we don't like or even know. And then we try to beat each other into voting for people no one either doing the beating or receiving the beating would normally give the time of day. Instead of complaining about an environment that pushes voters into a choice of only two, it is time to change the voting environment to one that allows for more choice.

If we as a nation were to get rid of the Anti-Fusion laws that came about at the beginning of the last century, DL would vanish.

 

[ronburgundy]

However, human behavior and thought often show regularities, and regularities are what's called "laws of nature".

But the use of the term DL can conjure images of powers outside the scope of man leading people to think there is nothing they can do to change things.

This is not true for everything about voting is within the control of the people doing the voting since everything about voting is a contrivance of human beings. So I think the idea of DL is meaningless at its best and deceptive at its worst.

AthenaAwakened, what is your explanation for the regularities that Maurice Duverger and others have observed? Do you think that it's a big fat coincidence? Or do you think that it's some kind of weird whim that voters and politicians have?

People behave in determined ways in response to the environment. The environment when it comes to voting is one totally within our control. So the choice is not in your response, but how you mold the environment to which you react.

Think of it like this. Every time you enter your kitchen, you sweat and feel uncomfortable. The thermostat in the kitchen is set at 98 degrees F. Yes, every time you enter that room, you will sweat and you will be uncomfortable. However, you can change this by lowering the thermostat. It is totally within your control. If you choose not to lower the temp, the results are just that, results of a choice you made to put yourself in an environment that you don't like.

Every four years, we get to vote for a roster of candidates, the majority of which we don't like or even know. And then we try to beat each other into voting for people no one either doing the beating or receiving the beating would normally give the time of day. Instead of complaining about an environment that pushes voters into a choice of only two, it is time to change the voting environment to one that allows for more choice.

If we as a nation were to get rid of the Anti-Fusion laws that came about at the beginning of the last century, DL would vanish.

Voting 3rd party rather than Hillary will do nothing to change the system. It will only elect Trump and increase the power of the GOP to ensure the system favors their interests. Besides, more than 2 viable options would actually only harm most true liberal causes.

It is childish notion to think the President should be a person you actually like and have no major problems with. There is only 1 President, and in any fair democracy they will be centrists and therefore be highly disliked by a large % of the populace, just less disliked than the other most centrists alternative. Unless your personal views are at the centrist epicenter of the populations views on all issues, you will and should have strong disagreement with any candidate elected under a fair democratic system.
FYI, you are nowhere near the center on most issues. That doesn't mean you are wrong an any of them. It means no candidate you really loved would have a chance in a valid and fair democracy. Their is no solution to this by changing the political system, other than the make the system less democratic resulting in the most representative candidate failing to win (which is what voting Nadar did in 2000 and what voting for the anti-science, selfish opportunist Stein would do in 2016). The solution that doesn't destroy representative democracy is to vote for the candidate that can win who is the closest to your views (lesser of two evils) while acting to shift the views of your fellow citizens.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You realize how mad that post is, dont you?

Not as mad as the post that precipitated this part of the discussion.

Guys, the "omg, he'll start a nucluar armageddon!!11!" was already done back in the 60s. There's enough against Trump that we ought not have to go to power level 9000 hyperbole.

Uhhho, I think that I got a little under your skin! I didn't mean to. It's been reported that Nixon was close a nuclear war a couple times (mostly because he was drunk); and he has a much less explosive temperament than Trump. I think that Trump is incredibly dangerous. I'm actually reading that a majority of the "never Trump" republicans are primarily concerned about Trump's temperament and lack of knowledge.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But the use of the term DL can conjure images of powers outside the scope of man leading people to think there is nothing they can do to change things.

This is not true for everything about voting is within the control of the people doing the voting since everything about voting is a contrivance of human beings. So I think the idea of DL is meaningless at its best and deceptive at its worst.

AthenaAwakened, what is your explanation for the regularities that Maurice Duverger and others have observed? Do you think that it's a big fat coincidence? Or do you think that it's some kind of weird whim that voters and politicians have?

People behave in determined ways in response to the environment. The environment when it comes to voting is one totally within our control. So the choice is not in your response, but how you mold the environment to which you react.

Think of it like this. Every time you enter your kitchen, you sweat and feel uncomfortable. The thermostat in the kitchen is set at 98 degrees F. Yes, every time you enter that room, you will sweat and you will be uncomfortable. However, you can change this by lowering the thermostat. It is totally within your control. If you choose not to lower the temp, the results are just that, results of a choice you made to put yourself in an environment that you don't like.

Every four years, we get to vote for a roster of candidates, the majority of which we don't like or even know. And then we try to beat each other into voting for people no one either doing the beating or receiving the beating would normally give the time of day. Instead of complaining about an environment that pushes voters into a choice of only two, it is time to change the voting environment to one that allows for more choice.

If we as a nation were to get rid of the Anti-Fusion laws that came about at the beginning of the last century, DL would vanish.

Voting 3rd party rather than Hillary will do nothing to change the system. It will only elect Trump and increase the power of the GOP to ensure the system favors their interests. Besides, more than 2 viable options would actually only harm most true liberal causes.

It is childish notion to think the President should be a person you actually like and have no major problems with. There is only 1 President, and in any fair democracy they will be centrists and therefore be highly disliked by a large % of the populace, just less disliked than the other most centrists alternative. Unless your personal views are at the centrist epicenter of the populations views on all issues, you will and should have strong disagreement with any candidate elected under a fair democratic system.
FYI, you are nowhere near the center on most issues. That doesn't mean you are wrong an any of them. It means no candidate you really loved would have a chance in a valid and fair democracy. Their is no solution to this by changing the political system, other than the make the system less democratic resulting in the most representative candidate failing to win (which is what voting Nadar did in 2000 and what voting for the anti-science, selfish opportunist Stein would do in 2016). The solution that doesn't destroy representative democracy is to vote for the candidate that can win who is the closest to your views (lesser of two evils) while acting to shift the views of your fellow citizens.

Are you reading what I write?

Thursday, a group of progressive activists and community leaders and I are meeting to formulate legislation to repeal the anti-fusion laws passed in our state after the Red Shirt riots 1898 right here in Wilmington NC, the only city in US history to ever have its government usurped by an armed coup.

That is what I am talking about. Changing the environment, not HRC or The Donald or how evil I or anyone else is who doesn't vote for the personality of the moment.

 

[blastula]

Fusion voting would help elect Clinton, not Stein.

 

[Juma]

You realize how mad that post is, dont you?

Not as mad as the post that precipitated this part of the discussion.

Guys, the "omg, he'll start a nucluar armageddon!!11!" was already done back in the 60s. There's enough against Trump that we ought not have to go to power level 9000 hyperbole.

Then you havent really understood the risk.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Fusion voting would help elect Clinton, not Stein.

Or you could look at it as fusion voting keeps whatever personality running honest and more open to lobbying by the voters not just the donors.

 

[blastula]

Yeah it could.

 

[lpetrich]

Voting 3rd party rather than Hillary will do nothing to change the system. It will only elect Trump and increase the power of the GOP to ensure the system favors their interests. Besides, more than 2 viable options would actually only harm most true liberal causes.

That's correct for first-past-the-post, even if not necessarily correct otherwise.

It is childish notion to think the President should be a person you actually like and have no major problems with. There is only 1 President, and in any fair democracy they will be centrists and therefore be highly disliked by a large % of the populace, just less disliked than the other most centrists alternative. Unless your personal views are at the centrist epicenter of the populations views on all issues, you will and should have strong disagreement with any candidate elected under a fair democratic system.

True, but some people still object "Why can't I vote for the one I like?"

It would be easier to with preference voting, for instance. One can make one's favorite candidate a top preference, and a compromise candidate one's next preference.