• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Oh boy. Yes, stein will fix everything by praying to crystals. My apologies if your post above was being sarcastic.

At least praying to crystals will get fewer people killed.

Uhhhh, negative. If Stein takes too many votes from HRC and Trump is elected: far more people will die. I predict that we'll be in nuclear war with someone shortly after he takes office. He's a crazy man.
 
jesus christ, no we won't. I'll take that bet.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
At least praying to crystals will get fewer people killed.

Uhhhh, negative. If Stein takes too many votes from HRC and Trump is elected: far more people will die. I predict that we'll be in nuclear war with someone shortly after he takes office. He's a crazy man.

what makes you think that Stein is taking votes from anyone? ever stop to think Clinton is running votes away? Or do you feel that Clinton owns other peoples votes?
 
Uhhhh, negative. If Stein takes too many votes from HRC and Trump is elected: far more people will die. I predict that we'll be in nuclear war with someone shortly after he takes office. He's a crazy man.

what makes you think that Stein is taking votes from anyone? ever stop to think Clinton is running votes away? Or do you feel that Clinton owns other peoples votes?

The dems and HRC have moved far to the left. They've adopted most of Sanders platform including free community college, killing TPP, and etc. If she loses due to Johnson/Stein taking too many votes, the dems will tact more to the moderates next time. If the left can't be counted on, they'll be ignored next time.
 
what makes you think that Stein is taking votes from anyone? ever stop to think Clinton is running votes away? Or do you feel that Clinton owns other peoples votes?

The dems and HRC have moved far to the left. They've adopted most of Sanders platform including free community college, killing TPP, and etc. If she loses due to Johnson/Stein taking too many votes, the dems will tact more to the moderates next time. If the left can't be counted on, they'll be ignored next time.

You aren't getting it. Read the questions again and, if you can, answer them directly.

If HRC, (former FLOTUS, former US Senator, Former Secretary of State, who has been running for POTUS fairly steady since 2006) with a war chest the length and breadth of which is truly humongous to behold, and an army of surrogates numbering in legions can be taken down by the likes of Stein and Johnson, then you have just made the argument for why she really shouldn't be president, because that would her damn weak.
 
The dems and HRC have moved far to the left. They've adopted most of Sanders platform including free community college, killing TPP, and etc. If she loses due to Johnson/Stein taking too many votes, the dems will tact more to the moderates next time. If the left can't be counted on, they'll be ignored next time.

You aren't getting it. Read the questions again and, if you can, answer them directly.

If HRC, (former FLOTUS, former US Senator, Former Secretary of State, who has been running for POTUS fairly steady since 2006) with a war chest the length and breadth of which is truly humongous to behold, and an army of surrogates numbering in legions can be taken down by the likes of Stein and Johnson, then you have just made the argument for why she really shouldn't be president, because that would her damn weak.

You misunderstood my post. Of course you are entitled to your own vote. Of course HRC doesn't own anyone's vote. My point that I didn't make very well is that the Clinton campaign has adopted a strategy to capitalize on Sanders success and run hard left. She's moving hard left to retain the Sanders votes. But this will cost her moderate votes. There are many moderates who will be turned off by higher government spending and less free trade. My point is that if she loses this time, it will because she moved left, didn't get enough votes on the left, and lost voters in the middle. If this comes to pass, it's unlikely that the next democratic candidate will tact so far to the left.

Secondly, I think that you've been watching too much fox news! Clinton isn't nearly the Genghis Kahn that Fox is making her out to be! Yes, I'd prefer that the US stays the hell out of the ME. But at least Clinton believes in unilateral action with our allies in the ME. At least she believes that our allies on the ground who live in the ME should occupy themselves. I think that her biggest problem is remembering the Rwandan genocide and how the Clinton administration was blamed due to inaction.
 
A couple questions on this progressiveness thingy.

Does the fact that the US uses Guantanamo to to hold combatants who proclaim the right to attack a nation acting under cover of a non-combatant host nation progressive carry more weight than keeping all refugees of other than national, say 'stralian, ethnicity and religions immigrants housed off nation?

Is it reasonable to compare nations who are mostly of one ethnicity with those that are multi-ethnic on the same scale?

...and what the hell does knowing one is 'hard left' have to do with whether there is a third party?

..and, and, we're 'merikans' we're not any kind of 'ians'

... and, and, and ....Really AthenaAwakened. What does competing for votes by positions against GOP have to do with a democrat voting democrat? I'm one of those who think a person should be placed in stocks for a day if they don't vote.
 
A couple questions on this progressiveness thingy.

Does the fact that the US uses Guantanamo to to hold combatants who proclaim the right to attack a nation acting under cover of a non-combatant host nation progressive carry more weight than keeping all refugees of other than national, say 'stralian, ethnicity and religions immigrants housed off nation?

Is it reasonable to compare nations who are mostly of one ethnicity with those that are multi-ethnic on the same scale?

...and what the hell does knowing one is 'hard left' have to do with whether there is a third party?

..and, and, we're 'merikans' we're not any kind of 'ians'

... and, and, and ....Really AthenaAwakened. What does competing for votes by positions against GOP have to do with a democrat voting democrat? I'm one of those who think a person should be placed in stocks for a day if they don't vote.

Who said anything about not voting? I don't know about where YOU live, but where I live, I have a whole lot of things to vote for that are not the presidential race.

And a party doesn't own anyone's vote anymore than a candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL at 'hard left'. Bernie Saunders' platform would be a rightward shift anywhere in the civilised world.

USAians haven't got the slightest clue what hard left even looks like.

QFT
 
AthenaAwakened, what's your opinion of  Duverger's law? Do you think that it is invalid?

Duverger: The Electoral System quotes from Maurice Duverger himself.
The brutal finality of a majority vote on a single ballot forces parties with similar tendencies to regroup their forces at the risk of being overwhelmingly defeated. Let us assume an election district in which 100,000 voters with moderate views are opposed by 80,000 communist voters. If the moderates are divided into two parties, the communist candidate may well win the election; should one of his opponents receive more than 20,000 votes, the other will be left with less than 80,000, thereby insuring the election of the communist. In the following election, the two parties with moderate views will naturally tend to unite. Should they fail to do so, the weaker party would gradually be eliminated as a dual consequence of "under-representation" and "polarization."
Thus explaining how  vote splitting causes the  spoiler effect.

AthenaAwakened, if you think that this discussion is wrong, then why do you think that it is wrong? "I don't want to vote for the lesser of the two major evils" is not good enough.

Maurice Duverger then discussed some alternatives.
In a system of proportional representation, the situation is quite different. The very principle of proportional representation explains the multiplicity of parties it produces. Since every minority, no matter how weak it may be, is assured of representation in the legislature, nothing prevents the formation of splinter parties, often separated only by mere shades of opinion. If the conservative party has 6 million votes in the country, corresponding to 300 seats in parliament, and if it splits into three groups about equal in numbers, proportional representation will give each of these about a hundred deputies, and the conservative family will have the same strength in parliament. In other respects, this electoral system does not encourage parties to unite. A coalition is useless from an electoral point of view since the entire system tends to permit everyone to take his chances at the polls.,Hence the reciprocal independence of the political parties.
So why is proportional representation often treated as unthinkable in the United States?

Halfway in between is runoff elections.
In a system in which elections arc decided by a majority vote on the second of two ballots, political parties are numerous because the existence of a second ballot permits each party to test its chances on the first one without risking irrevocable defeat through the splintering of parties holding similar views; the regrouping occurs on the second ballot through the game of "withdrawals." Let us again use the illustration of an election district in which the conservatives have 100,000 voters and the communists, 80,000. If the conservative electorate divides into two parties, with the first receiving 60,000 votes and the second, 40,000, while the communists vote as a bloc on the first ballot, there will still be a second ballot. For the second round, the weaker conservative candidate will withdraw. His supporters will switch their votes to the stronger candidate, who will normally be elected. New parties can thus multiply, but they are usually driven to form alliances with one another to check their opponents by means of "retreats" and "withdrawals." The second ballot is essentially a voting by coalitions, as was seen in France during the Third Republic and in Imperial Germany, the two large countries that have practiced this system.
 
AthenaAwakened, what's your opinion of  Duverger's law? Do you think that it is invalid?

Duverger: The Electoral System quotes from Maurice Duverger himself.

Thus explaining how  vote splitting causes the  spoiler effect.

AthenaAwakened, if you think that this discussion is wrong, then why do you think that it is wrong? "I don't want to vote for the lesser of the two major evils" is not good enough.

Maurice Duverger then discussed some alternatives.
In a system of proportional representation, the situation is quite different. The very principle of proportional representation explains the multiplicity of parties it produces. Since every minority, no matter how weak it may be, is assured of representation in the legislature, nothing prevents the formation of splinter parties, often separated only by mere shades of opinion. If the conservative party has 6 million votes in the country, corresponding to 300 seats in parliament, and if it splits into three groups about equal in numbers, proportional representation will give each of these about a hundred deputies, and the conservative family will have the same strength in parliament. In other respects, this electoral system does not encourage parties to unite. A coalition is useless from an electoral point of view since the entire system tends to permit everyone to take his chances at the polls.,Hence the reciprocal independence of the political parties.
So why is proportional representation often treated as unthinkable in the United States?

Halfway in between is runoff elections.
In a system in which elections arc decided by a majority vote on the second of two ballots, political parties are numerous because the existence of a second ballot permits each party to test its chances on the first one without risking irrevocable defeat through the splintering of parties holding similar views; the regrouping occurs on the second ballot through the game of "withdrawals." Let us again use the illustration of an election district in which the conservatives have 100,000 voters and the communists, 80,000. If the conservative electorate divides into two parties, with the first receiving 60,000 votes and the second, 40,000, while the communists vote as a bloc on the first ballot, there will still be a second ballot. For the second round, the weaker conservative candidate will withdraw. His supporters will switch their votes to the stronger candidate, who will normally be elected. New parties can thus multiply, but they are usually driven to form alliances with one another to check their opponents by means of "retreats" and "withdrawals." The second ballot is essentially a voting by coalitions, as was seen in France during the Third Republic and in Imperial Germany, the two large countries that have practiced this system.

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. 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.
 
How is it deceptive? As I said earlier in the thread, I live in a country where it actually happened. The Canadian government spent a decade taking a hard tack to the right despite only about 35% of the country being right wing. The strong majority on the left split the vote and ended up with policies completely antithetical to anything they wanted as a result.

While nobody has a right to your vote, you do need to ask yourself what you hope to accomplish by voting and what's the best way to achieve that. If you vote in a way that harms your interests in order to make a point, all that's going to happen is that your opponents are going to say thanks and laugh at you.
 
Whether or not voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want to try to build a third party up and you don't care about electing your least favorite, then you should probably vote for a third party. Or, if you want to try to send a message to one of the main parties, you should probably vote for a third party. If you are voting for a third party because your goal is to get that candidate elected, you are probably wasting your vote.

As posters have already said, the biggest problem is our vote only allows us to express an opinion on a single candidate. That is not a representative system. I think it is OK to be aggravated at third party candidates who split the vote as long as those complaining are also screaming from the rooftops to change the voting system. Unfortunately not very many of these people seem to want to do that. If nobody wants to do anything about it then a good way to protest is to help a candidate lose by splitting his/her vote with a third party.

We can change the voting system state by state. Maine is going to have ballot initiative in November to implement instant runoff voting statewide. I'm no fan of IRV, but this would be a step up and we should be trying to work to change the voting system in other states as well. Some states are working on an interstate compact for a national popular vote. We could be working on changing this so that approval voting would be used instead of plurality.

If you want to send a message to one of the main parties, drop them an email, or write them a letter.

https://www.gop.com/contact-us/

https://my.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Voting for a third party is just about the least effective possible method of communicating with the major parties, with the possible exception of attempting to use telepathy.

Seriously, emailing those two organizations is massively more effective than voting for a third party could ever be. And then you still get to vote for your choice of the least awful of the two. Win-win.

Well, in Canada, the Liberal Party wasn't really worried about electoral reform until the NDP handed the Conservatives the election in 2011. Now, they are actually in the process of doing something about it. If more Republicans won by vote splitting, maybe at least the alternative media like TYT would start pushing for alternative voting methods and put it into the public consciousness.
 
AthenaAwakened, what's your opinion of  Duverger's law? Do you think that it is invalid?

Duverger: The Electoral System quotes from Maurice Duverger himself.

Thus explaining how  vote splitting causes the  spoiler effect.

AthenaAwakened, if you think that this discussion is wrong, then why do you think that it is wrong? "I don't want to vote for the lesser of the two major evils" is not good enough.

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".

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?
 
jesus christ, no we won't. I'll take that bet.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

"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.
 
Back
Top Bottom