What will be the October Surprise?

[Toni]

Said by the not-a-Trump-supporter.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because I am opposed to Kamala "there is no question that I am in favor of banning fracking and offshore drilling" Harris does not mean that I support Trump.

In the upcoming election there is no excluded middle.

At least not in this universe.

Nah! One can vote Green or libertarian. Protest vote!

So, for Trump but pretending your hands are clean.

That reminds me of when I lived in California. I voted 3rd party in the 2016 election, and was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason she lost Pennsylvania.

Unless you are in a swing state, "So, for Trump but pretending your hands are clean" is a false claim.

Sure. No one’s vote means anything. Reality is an illusion. Protest votes really show the man and change everything.

Cynicism is just how cowards describe themselves to feel better about themselves.

I take it you are bad at math. There is no possible in which my votes for first Mitt Romney and then Jill Stein in 2012 could possibly have cost Obama the election. It just isn't possible. Run the simulation as many times as you like. Obama won fully 60% of my states' vote, that year. So why should I have cast a dishonest vote for someone I didn't want to continue in office? It cost Obama nothing but gave me a small measure of personal peace. If anyone noticed my vote at all, it was to note it as part of a broad statistic of how many voters desired an alternative to the blood-soaked, xenophobic "centrism" that passed for the political Left in those days. A message I would have been more than happy to send, in the unlikely event that anyone was listening at all.

Nope, Im pretty decent at math but I admit to having not a lot of experience with statistics, which is what I think you mean.

I understand very well why people vote for third party candidates, having done so in the past. BTW, the absolute worse choice candidate won each of those times. Which cured me of being a spoiled brat and holding my breath until everyone else came to their senses. Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor. And that the good of the country was a lot more important than my protest vote. And that pursuit of the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not something I would expect either a Mitt Romney voter or Jill Stein voter to understand.

 

[Politesse]

Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor

If your choice cannot change the outcome in any way, why not vote as you choose? It's your vote, not anyone else's. Unless you live in a state where the outcome of the election is some way uncertain, voting for "the better of two bad options" is making sacrifices for no reason, sacrifices that result in no gain. It's like thinking you have to marry the opposite sex in order to foster the next generation, despite knowing yourself to be both gay and infertile. It's not just that my vote for Stein didn't result in Obama losing California, it's that it couldn't have. It's just not possible. You might as well imagine that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow because you let someone go out of turn at an intersection this afternoon. Obama could not have lost California, especially in the primary, and believing that I somehow owed him unconditional fealty even in situations where it truly doesn't matter, just for being a better man than Romney? That is a childish, not adult, frame of mind. Tishing me for voting for Romney is especially silly. Obama won the Democratic primary that year by 90.1%. But you claim he needed one more vote, from me? Why? What for? What would he do with it? How would it have helped him in any way?

 

[Politesse]

That reminds me of when I lived in California. I voted 3rd party in the 2016 election, and was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason she lost Pennsylvania.

Unless you are in a swing state, "So, for Trump but pretending your hands are clean" is a false claim.

May or may not have been the reason she lost, however your third party vote was useless, so good job I guess?

Whereas an expected, party line vote would have been useful? How? What is "useful" about it?

I dunno I just think it's pretty useful not to have a fascist in office who'll kill everyone you love if given the chance.

So you're delusional? The situation you describe is not possible. A vote in California cannot change whom Pennsylvania's electors will choose to nominate. You are not checking reality, you're checking it at the door.

 

[Toni]

Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor

If your choice cannot change the outcome in any way, why not vote as you choose? It's your vote, not anyone else's. Unless you live in a state where the outcome of the election is some way uncertain, voting for "the better of two bad options" is making sacrifices for no reason, sacrifices that result in no gain. It's like thinking you have to marry the opposite sex in order to foster the next generation, despite knowing yourself to be both gay and infertile. It's not just that my vote for Stein didn't result in Obama losing California, it's that it couldn't have. It's just not possible. You might as well imagine that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow because you let someone go out of turn at an intersection this afternoon. Obama could not have lost California, especially in the primary, and believing that I somehow owed him unconditional fealty even in situations where it truly doesn't matter, just for being a better man than Romney? That is a childish, not adult, frame of mind. Tishing me for voting for Romney is especially silly. Obama won the Democratic primary that year by 90.1%. But you claim he needed one more vote, from me? Why? What for? What would he do with it? How would it have helped him in any way?

Because how can one really know whether your vote will turn the tide or not? Or how many of your fellow protest voters will likewise vote for Neither of These Two Clowns--and thus turn the tide? You can't and you don't. I am saying that in my experience, my protest votes (which truly were for candidates I thought would have been better choices but who I knew had zero chance of winning) helped contribute to the election of the very worst candidate. Did my vote do it alone? No, I'm unaware of any presidential election that hung on a single vote. But I was part of the reason the worst candidate won and to me, that's not acceptable. Just like it's not acceptable to me to take a candy bar when no one is looking or drive 90 mph on a country road with no one else (that I know of) out at the same time. It probably won't make a difference to anyone but myself. I do like chocolate and I also like going really fast so where's the harm if just I do it? Well, petty theft is definitely much less dangerous than driving 90 mph but if enough people decide to grab a candy bar or toothpaste or whatever--the store goes under. And if people know you got away with a bit of shoplifting, then they're tempted to do it as well. Why not? You didn't get caught and one candybar won't make or break any convenience store.

I do not mean that voting third party is the same thing as petty theft or speeding. And I wouldn't think much of it if the stakes were not so very very high as they are this time. I'm not actually scolding you as saying that there is your absolute right to choose to vote for whoever you wish---and the responsibility we all share as US citizens to try to elect the best possible candidate of the slate of candidates before us, even when we have to hold our noses to do it.

Protest votes make very little difference to the recipients of those votes: they lose anyway.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No, I'm unaware of any presidential election that hung on a single vote.

George W bush. 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nope, Im pretty decent at math but I admit to having not a lot of experience with statistics, which is what I think you mean.

I understand very well why people vote for third party candidates, having done so in the past. BTW, the absolute worse choice candidate won each of those times. Which cured me of being a spoiled brat and holding my breath until everyone else came to their senses. Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor. And that the good of the country was a lot more important than my protest vote. And that pursuit of the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not something I would expect either a Mitt Romney voter or Jill Stein voter to understand.

Explain the math to me then.

I was in California. California went very strongly for Clinton. I was in California and I voted for Gary Johnson. California went strongly for Clinton.

Clinton lost Pennsylvania and as a result lost the general election. I voted in California, I did not vote in Pennsylvania, because I loved in California and I did not live in Pennsylvania.

How did my vote result in the "worse choice candidate" winning?

 

[Politesse]

But I was part of the reason the worst candidate won and to me, that's not acceptable. Just like it's not acceptable to me to take a candy bar when no one is looking or drive 90 mph on a country road with no one else (that I know of) out at the same time. It probably won't make a difference to anyone but myself.

But you want me to vote against my own conscience for no reason, in a similar situation where the principal meaning of the act is to myself? In situations where my vote cannot possibly effect the outcome of the election in any meaningful way? Why should an informed loyalty to a Party that doesn't give a shit about me take precedence over my own rational judgment and political interests?

You "feel guilt" either because you are bad at counting, or were in a very different situation as a voter than I have ever been. I have never voted in an national presidential election where the outcome for my state was reasonably in question. I choose to take advantage of that situation to vote as I would like to vote rather than I feel strategically obliged to, and I have no qualms about any vote that I have ever submitted to the state. None did any harm, and it is unlikely that anything has eer hinged on my vote aside from the mayor race for my little hometown and a few local ballot measures over the years. That's fine with me; I understand that I live in a country with 300 million other people, and that my voice is but a tiny one in the grand scheme of things, feeling no need to justify my responsibility to the vote with a fantasy of personal control of responsibility over national affairs. I just think that whatever miniscule agency I possess ought to be mine to decide what to do with as I see fit, not the property of a political party.

 

[Elixir]

Why should an informed loyalty to a Party that doesn't give a shit about me take precedence over my own rational judgment and political interests?

Is the voting booth a place where you can advance your own judgment and political interests?

 

[Politesse]

Why should an informed loyalty to a Party that doesn't give a shit about me take precedence over my own rational judgment and political interests?

Is the voting booth a place where you can advance your own judgment and political interests?

One of the few! You do too, even if you voluntarily choose to give that agency away to whomever the news agencies picked for people on your half of the national moiety that year. For me, yes, the (digital, highly theoretical) voting booth is a sacred thing. It's not much, but it is mine. I spend weeks researching every single candidate and policy on the ballot, not because I must but because I want to. I strongly support the principle of a democratic republican government, and I am happy to play a role in it.

 

[Elixir]

I spend weeks researching every single candidate and policy on the ballot, not because I must but because I want to. I strongly support the principle of a democratic republican government, and I am happy to play a role in it.

Same here. Sometimes (rarely) study even alters my decision about which news agency’s wish I choose to support. But I almost never throw it away on a non-factor.

Almost.

ETA I just threw away a primary ballot. Apparently I have to quit the Dem party again to restore any choice in the primary.

 

[laughing dog]

Numerically, the odds of any particular person’s vote in a US national election is basically zero. So why bother voting for any candidate?
Hmmmm.

 

[Elixir]

The bottom line:

 

[Toni]

But I was part of the reason the worst candidate won and to me, that's not acceptable. Just like it's not acceptable to me to take a candy bar when no one is looking or drive 90 mph on a country road with no one else (that I know of) out at the same time. It probably won't make a difference to anyone but myself.

But you want me to vote against my own conscience for no reason, in a similar situation where the principal meaning of the act is to myself? In situations where my vote cannot possibly effect the outcome of the election in any meaningful way? Why should an informed loyalty to a Party that doesn't give a shit about me take precedence over my own rational judgment and political interests?

You "feel guilt" either because you are bad at counting, or were in a very different situation as a voter than I have ever been. I have never voted in a national presidential election where the outcome for my state was reasonably in question. I choose to take advantage of that situation to vote as I would like to vote rather than I feel strategically obliged to, and I have no qualms about any vote that I have ever submitted to the state. None did any harm, and it is unlikely that anything has eer hinged on my vote aside from the mayor race for my little hometown and a few local ballot measures over the years. That's fine with me; I understand that I live in a country with 300 million other people, and that my voice is but a tiny one in the grand scheme of things, feeling no need to justify my responsibility to the vote with a fantasy of personal control of responsibility over national affairs. I just think that whatever miniscule agency I possess ought to be mine to decide what to do with as I see fit, not the property of a political party.

No I don’t feel guilt: I recognize the meaninglessness of my protest vote. And that in an extremely small way, I contributed to bringing about the very worst possible outcome in those elections.

But if you genuinely voted for either Mitt Romney or Jill Stein because, in your opinion, they were the best candidates, then I cannot justify spending more time discussing the pros and cons of voting third party in close election situations.

 

[Toni]

Nope, Im pretty decent at math but I admit to having not a lot of experience with statistics, which is what I think you mean.

I understand very well why people vote for third party candidates, having done so in the past. BTW, the absolute worse choice candidate won each of those times. Which cured me of being a spoiled brat and holding my breath until everyone else came to their senses. Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor. And that the good of the country was a lot more important than my protest vote. And that pursuit of the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not something I would expect either a Mitt Romney voter or Jill Stein voter to understand.

Explain the math to me then.

I was in California. California went very strongly for Clinton. I was in California and I voted for Gary Johnson. California went strongly for Clinton.

Clinton lost Pennsylvania and as a result lost the general election. I voted in California, I did not vote in Pennsylvania, because I loved in California and I did not live in Pennsylvania.

How did my vote result in the "worse choice candidate" winning?

I’m not explaining the math. I’m explaining the principle: You have no way of knowing what impact your single, individual vote will have on the outcome of an election. You don’t know. You may be able to predict with a great deal of certainty but you don’t know.

 

[Toni]

No, I'm unaware of any presidential election that hung on a single vote.

George W bush. 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

Ah, I meant voters not USSC. But fair point to you.

 

[Politesse]

Nope, Im pretty decent at math but I admit to having not a lot of experience with statistics, which is what I think you mean.

I understand very well why people vote for third party candidates, having done so in the past. BTW, the absolute worse choice candidate won each of those times. Which cured me of being a spoiled brat and holding my breath until everyone else came to their senses. Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor. And that the good of the country was a lot more important than my protest vote. And that pursuit of the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not something I would expect either a Mitt Romney voter or Jill Stein voter to understand.

Explain the math to me then.

I was in California. California went very strongly for Clinton. I was in California and I voted for Gary Johnson. California went strongly for Clinton.

Clinton lost Pennsylvania and as a result lost the general election. I voted in California, I did not vote in Pennsylvania, because I loved in California and I did not live in Pennsylvania.

How did my vote result in the "worse choice candidate" winning?

I’m not explaining the math. I’m explaining the principle: You have no way of knowing what impact your single, individual vote will have on the outcome of an election. You don’t know. You may be able to predict with a great deal of certainty but you don’t know.

As I said, you're struggling with the math part here. No, there is no realistic possibility of California's electoral vote going to Trump this time. You could run the experiment 10,000 times and the result would be the same each time. What you are describing is a scenario so implausible that itvcanmot be a reasonable guide for one's actions.

 

[Politesse]

But if you genuinely voted for either Mitt Romney or Jill Stein because, in your opinion, they were the best candidates, then I cannot justify spending more time discussing the pros and cons of voting third party in close election situations.

No other reasonable case can be made, as far as Romney is concerned. Are you going to look me dead in the eye and tell me that you think his principal competitor at that point, Rick Santorum, would have built a better America in which to live?

 

[Toni]

But if you genuinely voted for either Mitt Romney or Jill Stein because, in your opinion, they were the best candidates, then I cannot justify spending more time discussing the pros and cons of voting third party in close election situations.

No other reasonable case can be made, as far as Romney is concerned. Are you going to look me dead in the eye and tell me that you think his principal competitor at that point, Rick Santorum, would have built a better America in which to live?

Nope, Im pretty decent at math but I admit to having not a lot of experience with statistics, which is what I think you mean.

I understand very well why people vote for third party candidates, having done so in the past. BTW, the absolute worse choice candidate won each of those times. Which cured me of being a spoiled brat and holding my breath until everyone else came to their senses. Instead, I grew up and realized that adults sometimes have to make difficult choices, sometimes between a set of choices they see as very poor. And that the good of the country was a lot more important than my protest vote. And that pursuit of the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not something I would expect either a Mitt Romney voter or Jill Stein voter to understand.

Explain the math to me then.

I was in California. California went very strongly for Clinton. I was in California and I voted for Gary Johnson. California went strongly for Clinton.

Clinton lost Pennsylvania and as a result lost the general election. I voted in California, I did not vote in Pennsylvania, because I loved in California and I did not live in Pennsylvania.

How did my vote result in the "worse choice candidate" winning?

I’m not explaining the math. I’m explaining the principle: You have no way of knowing what impact your single, individual vote will have on the outcome of an election. You don’t know. You may be able to predict with a great deal of certainty but you don’t know.

As I said, you're struggling with the math part here. No, there is no realistic possibility of California's electoral vote going to Trump this time. You could run the experiment 10,000 times and the result would be the same each time. What you are describing is a scenario so implausible that itvcanmot be a reasonable guide for one's actions.

No, you are relying on the supposition that enough voters will save California and allow you to do your protest vote for your conscious.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the math as well. Why vote for someone who cannot possibly win? Why does that make you feel better or more true to yourself?

 

[Politesse]

Why vote for someone who cannot possibly win? Why does that make you feel better or more true to yourself?

Because it's my vote.

And "because they're winning" is not the only reason to vote (or not vote) for a candidate.

 

[Toni]

Why vote for someone who cannot possibly win? Why does that make you feel better or more true to yourself?

Because it's my vote.

And "because they're winning" is not the only reason to vote (or not vote) for a candidate.

I agree. But my point was that everyone’s vote does count and it does say something. In close elections, voting for candidates who cannot possibly win usually or in my experience, has always resulted in the worst candidate being elected.

Which is why I don’t do that any more.