Is voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all a cop out?
The US presidential elections, despite the presence of other candidates' names on the various ballot, is in reality a binary choice. Under our current system, either the democratic or republican party nominee will be the next president. No doubt about it. So what happens when a citizen just simply can't stand either candidate and doesn't want either one to be president?
Some people decide to stay home and just not vote for either. Some decide to vote for some relatively obscure candidate on the ballot or write one in. But it seems to me that in doing so one is in practical effect forfeiting their right to determine who leads the country for the next 4 years. No matter how bad the two choices seem, one is going to be president. Do citizens have a civic responsibility (is that even a concept anymore?) to make a tough decision and choose? Or is refusing to make that choice, and thereby leaving it in the hands of others a valid approach to elections?
My thinking is that no matter how bad both candidates may be, when you start going down a list of pros and cons, somewhere down the list you will finally reach a point where one candidate gets a slightly better mark than the other on something. Or maybe it's more broadly focused, like a desire to not have all three branches of government controlled by the same party. But ultimately there should be some difference to make you hold your nose and pick one over the other.
IMO to "waste" a vote on a fringe candidate or not vote at all is shirking a responsibility all citizens should be expected to exercise.
The rhetoric that anyone on the left is a commie and anyone on the right is a fascist which has been common in US political discourse probably since the Dubya days (if not before) has unfortunately inured much of the US voting public to these terms. As such, when there is a real danger of an actual fascist getting into power, everyone doesn't get it already just shrugs the warnings off as "leftist hysteria". It's the age old story of the boy who cried wolf.
Remind me: when was the time when the left said "this guy is a fascist!", the right believed them, and then it turned out the left was wrong? Usually what happens is the left says "this guy is a fascist!", the right makes farting noises, and we wind up bombing some nation.
Remind me: when was the time when the left said "this guy is a fascist!", the right believed them, and then it turned out the left was wrong? Usually what happens is the left says "this guy is a fascist!", the right makes farting noises, and we wind up bombing some nation.
I've only really been following politics since Trump entered stage left. What I wrote is the impression I get from speaking with people I'd consider centre/moderate right in the US whom I personally know, would consider fairly or very intelligent, and who have been following politics a lot longer than I have. Just my impression based on anecdotal evidence.
Remind me: when was the time when the left said "this guy is a fascist!", the right believed them, and then it turned out the left was wrong? Usually what happens is the left says "this guy is a fascist!", the right makes farting noises, and we wind up bombing some nation.
Which is why it's so important to vote for the Democrats who aren't at all bombing people?
I have abstained from voting since 2008 but realize that is a mistake and should have been voting 3rd party. If a 3rd party candidate can get some % of the popular vote it at least sends a message that people are out there voting, just not for you two.
Hopefully that would mean they would shift their platform somewhere to capture those voters in key states but that's probably just a euphemism for they'll come up with some new lies for votes as they line their pockets.
If there's a suitable alternative candidate then voting for them is far better than abstaining. Some form of organisation beyond voting is really needed to advocate for the sort of policies we want but that has to be backed with our (non) vote or the politicians have ~no reason to care. It's democracy - the power is with the voters but we have to choose to exercise it.
The rhetoric that anyone on the left is a commie and anyone on the right is a fascist which has been common in US political discourse probably since the Dubya days (if not before) has unfortunately inured much of the US voting public to these terms. As such, when there is a real danger of an actual fascist getting into power, everyone doesn't get it already just shrugs the warnings off as "leftist hysteria". It's the age old story of the boy who cried wolf.
Indeed. Polarisation is a catastrophie. I've been arguing that for years on this forum. It's so bad in the usa and so dangerous. Getting worse here as well
for big things like the presidency and what really matters, obviously your vote does not count.
The oligarchy will decide for us
Voting helps you decide small local things, like which candidate gets to steal money from your town.
JK local votes count but its too much of a hassle
Is that worth missing work for and not getting paid? not really
for big things like the presidency and what really matters, obviously your vote does not count.
The oligarchy will decide for us
Voting helps you decide small local things, like which candidate gets to steal money from your town.
JK local votes count but its too much of a hassle
Is that worth missing work for and not getting paid? not really
If those 500 extra R voters in Florida in 2000 felt this way, history textbooks might look very different today.
Remind me: when was the time when the left said "this guy is a fascist!", the right believed them, and then it turned out the left was wrong? Usually what happens is the left says "this guy is a fascist!", the right makes farting noises, and we wind up bombing some nation.
or surveilling the whole country, drone bombing American citizens, rounding up and deporting millions, torturing prisoners, and doing genocide.
Spoiler
I vote out of some sense of democratic obligation rather than because I think my vote makes any actual difference. As such voting for whichever party/candiate (I’m British) I like the most seems to be the sensible thing to do. I don’t really see the point of tactical voting when my vote is never actually going to affect the outcome one way or the other.
I think that depends a bit; there can be strategic reasons to vote for the lesser of two evils. I partially agree with you, but I don't believe this is an absolute rule.
Democracy and voting are extremely imporrtant and powerful but only if people use their vote to stand up and be counted for what they want. Sometimes that may mean not voting or writing something in
Writing something in/spoiling the ballot, yes! Not voting leads to:
Also we mustn't confuse the apthetic with those determined to vote for what they want. The former are irrelevent, the later are the people the politicians are desperate to adjust to.
I have abstained from voting since 2008 but realize that is a mistake and should have been voting 3rd party. If a 3rd party candidate can get some % of the popular vote it at least sends a message that people are out there voting, just not for you two.
👍
Many people might believe that it doesn't matter which of the two main candidates win; their lives will not change either way. If that is your belief, not voting is logical.
Not really, IMO. I think it's important that those who don't like either candidate make their voice heard separately from those who just don't care. Also, many elections have much more to vote on - IE other levels of government, initiatives, referendums, etc.
If there's a suitable alternative candidate then voting for them is far better than abstaining. Some form of organisation beyond voting is really needed to advocate for the sort of policies we want but that has to be backed with our (non) vote or the politicians have ~no reason to care. It's democracy - the power is with the voters but we have to choose to exercise it.
Exactly.
Voting helps you decide small local things, like which candidate gets to steal money from your town.
JK local votes count
Not only do they count, they're important. For those who say they don't vote because the two parties are the same - I hope you go out for your local elections, because that often has the greatest impact on your day to day life at home, and it's pretty rare that every candidate would do the exact same thing at that level. If you sit those out as well, I suspect that the reason you don't vote in the bigger elections has little to do with the parties being the same.
but its too much of a hassle
Is that worth missing work for and not getting paid? not really
That's sad, for a couple of reasons. First off, I think it's a disappointing attitude. But much more importantly, it demonstrates the need for something like this:
The federal election has been called for October 21, 2019. Employers should be aware that, under the Canada Elections Act, they must provide employees paid time off to vote.
Three consecutive hours to vote
All employees who are Canadian citizens and 18 years of age or older are entitled to have three consecutive hours off on Election Day to vote. Voting hours in the Eastern time zone are from 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. If an employee’s hours of work do not allow for three consecutive hours off within this period, the employer must give them sufficient time off to meet the requirement of three consecutive hours.
Therefore, for example, if an employee works from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., it is not necessary for the employer to give them time off, as the employee has more than three hours after work in which to vote. If an employee works from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., the employer must provide some time off, but it is not necessary to grant three hours off during the middle of the day. The Act provides that voting time is to be allowed at the convenience of the employer, so the employer in this case may allow the employee to leave work at 6:30 p.m.
https://ehlaw.ca/voting-time-employers-o...
or surveilling the whole country, drone bombing American citizens, rounding up and deporting millions, torturing prisoners, and doing genocide.
Spoiler
At least the ice cream picture was good.
I think that depends a bit; there can be strategic reasons to vote for the lesser of two evils. I partially agree with you, but I don't believe this is an absolute rule.
I think we pretty much agree on this topic and I agree there are exceptions- trump may well be one but it's a hell of a mess to have got into.
I dont think there are any rules/principles that dont have exceptions (including this one).
I believe it is the ethical thing to not vote
I also believe it is the ethical thing to move to swing states where your vote matters.
I also believe it is the ethical thing to move to swing states where your vote matters.
Taking your recommendation I just told my cousin to move to Iowa while there is still time to register.
I believe it is the ethical thing to not vote
I also believe it is the ethical thing to move to swing states where your vote matters.
Wow, another genius idea from the same source that brought you "abolish bail and have cops follow defendants around 24 hours a day instead", "pay every Palestinian a million dollars to move to the US", "if anyone threatens or attacks you, immediately surrender if there is a chance of losing", and "solve the problem of your low ceilings by cutting off your head".
You truly are an "ideas" man. Please do ensure you fill out a donor card and leave your brain to science once you inevitably win the Darwin award, probably by figuring out that you can get free rail travel by lying down on the track and grabbing on to the undercarriage of a passing train. It really will be a marvel to study and you owe it to humanity to preserve the findings for posterity.
Taking your recommendation I just told my cousin to move to Iowa while there is still time to register.
If you choose to vote, does it matter if you vote for the president in a state that always votes one color?
If you wanted your vote to count for as much as it could, you would want to live in a swing state. The 2000 election for the leader of the free world was decided by 400 votes. 4 billion people affected by 400 people
I don’t think you can do anything better for your party than live and vote in a swing state.
Not really, IMO. I think it's important that those who don't like either candidate make their voice heard separately from those who just don't care. Also, many elections have much more to vote on - IE other levels of government, initiatives, referendums, etc.
I wasn't referring to only presidential elections. And it doesn't matter who the candidates are, it's a general belief that it nothing in your life will meaningfully change because of an election. That belief might not be logical, but there are plenty of people that have it so, for them, not voting is logical.
That has to include then believing that either it won't meaningfully effect anybody else or that they don't care about those it will meaningfully effect.
I wasn't referring to only presidential elections. And it doesn't matter who the candidates are, it's a general belief that it nothing in your life will meaningfully change because of an election. That belief might not be logical, but there are plenty of people that have it so, for them, not voting is logical.
Sure, many people justify their decision not to vote on a limited view like this. One can consider many decisions "logical" by framing them in a way that makes them so.
If you choose to vote, does it matter if you vote for the president in a state that always votes one color?
If you wanted your vote to count for as much as it could, you would want to live in a swing state. The 2000 election for the leader of the free world was decided by 400 votes. 4 billion people affected by 400 people
I don’t think you can do anything better for your party than live and vote in a swing state.
I think it's important to vote even in a non-swing state. When people of the minority party stay home, the final results indicate that a state is much more red or blue than it really is. States gradually shift from one party to the next. As results grow closer, the minority party may spend more resources in supporting their candidate, like upping the get out the vote effort. And eventually it becomes a purple state.
California is an interesting example. From the 1952 election until the 1992 election, CA voted republican in every election but one (1964). So for almost 40 years, CA was a lock red state. Then in 1992 it switched to blue with Clinton, and has now voted democrat in every election since.
I think it's important to vote even in a non-swing state. When people of the minority party stay home, the final results indicate that a state is much more red or blue than it really is. States gradually shift from one party to the next. As results grow closer, the minority party may spend more resources in supporting their candidate, like upping the get out the vote effort. And eventually it becomes a purple state.
California is an interesting example. From the 1952 election until the 1992 ele
I guess that would explain the mass exodus, crime, homelessness, massive deficits and corruption
I guess that would explain the mass exodus, crime, homelessness, massive deficits and corruption
Mass exodus!!111!!1!1!!
The population of California in 2023 was 38,965,193, a 0.19% decline from 2022.
The population of California in 2022 was 39,040,616, a 0.27% decline from 2021.
The population of California in 2021 was 39,145,060, a 0.91% decline from 2020.
The population of California in 2020 was 39,503,200, a 0.17% increase from 2019.
https://www.macrotrends.net/states/calif...
Of course this is a complete departure from the thread topic, but never pass up a chance to repeat a right derposphere talking point, amirite?
