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.
Mass exodus!!111!!1!1!!
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?
Compared to other states some would say that is a mass exodus.
Though I guess your not questioning the
Crime
Homelessness
Corruption…,
Christ you’re an idiot
As it relates to the OP. I guess it depends on your perspective
Obviously either Biden or Trump will win the election. If you’re making a conscious decision to vote anyone but those two it’s because you’re a sanctimonious clown who gets off on a self-righteous smugness for being the smartest guy in the room or laughing at people by saying their vote doesn’t matter so who cares. It’s essentially an exhausting level of pointless trolling
If you don’t vote at all, if it’s because of apathy of the candidates then lol. There are other things on the ballot besides the presidential election. If it’s cuz you just never vote then whatever
Your protest votes are pointless to anyone other than the handful of people in your Instagram or Twitter feed you get to promote it to
Also they have you on mute
Unless you live in one of a few states it doesn't even matter.
No, I don't believe any critical thinker would suggest that 1.3% over three years is a mass exodus, especially when US population growth is so low. The only people I've heard suggest this are those who parrot the right wing derposphere which loves to push the idea that every "Dem-run" state is a hellhole, which sadly is lapped up by "barstool conservatives".
No, I'm choosing the one assertion you made that is easy to demonstrate was completely incorrect. The others you didn't make an assertion about, you merely listed off things that exist everywhere to different extents, and I wasn't going to dig into that since this is the "Is voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all a cop out?", not the "Lozen parrots right wing talking points about California" thread.
That people frame the decision in such a way that their choice is logical to them? I guess so, but I'm not sure why that's important.
Voting is like religion for people. You'd have just as good of a chance convincing a devout Catholic to not say her rosary every night than you would convincing a voter that it's a meaningless gesture. People want to feel like they have some control over their destiny both in this world and beyond so the two have identical functions.
I didn't say they were right. I offered a reason why they don't vote.
I guess I just object to saying "If that is your belief, not voting is logical." That requires narrowing voting down to "it doesn't matter which of the two main candidates win; their lives will not change either way", which isn't correct. So someone holding that belief and then suggesting that means their decision to not vote is logical is simply using "logic" (that is based on a faulty premise) as an excuse. They're not voting because they only care about what they believe directly impacts them in their immediate future. Fair enough I suppose, but there's no logic involved in that.
No, I don't believe any critical thinker would suggest that 1.3% over three years is a mass exodus, especially when US population growth is so low. The only people I've heard suggest this are those who parrot the right wing derposphere which loves to push the idea that every "Dem-run" state is a hellhole, which sadly is lapped up by "barstool conservatives".
No, I'm choosing the one assertion you made that is easy to demonstrate was completely incorrect. The others you didn't make an assertion ab
What’s funny is there’s plenty of right wing talking points to legitimately explain the slight decline of population without going deepthroat MAGA with some irrelevant nonsense
Taxes are out****ingrageous
It is prohibitively expensive to live here. People leave either cuz they can’t afford it or because they decided to sell their fully paid off home they’ve lived in for 40 years to go move to another state where they can buy a place twice the size for a quarter the cost
Unless you’re willing to live in like Bakersfield or some boony ass place or some MAGAcalifornia deliverance place in the shastas, rates and home values are so high you are unlikely to qualify for a mortgage making 150k unless you put 30+% down
And if that doesn’t satisfy what your newsmax overlords tell you I’ll even concede this state is the bastion of virtue signaling
But ya, all the 4 bed 2 bath 1500 sqft homes in my neighborhood are valued at 2 million and would be sold within days of being listed because…something something corruption I guess
No, I don't believe any critical thinker would suggest that 1.3% over three years is a mass exodus, especially when US population growth is so low. The only people I've heard suggest this are those who parrot the right wing derposphere which loves to push the idea that every "Dem-run" state is a hellhole, which sadly is lapped up by "barstool conservatives".
No, I'm choosing the one assertion you made that is easy to demonstrate was completely incorrect. The others you didn't make an assertion ab
You’re also not factoring businesses that have also left due to the crime , taxes and regulations.
Hard to counter something you didn't mention. But of course this still has nothing to do with the thread. If you want to argue about all your California is a shithole hot takes, I'm sure there are numerous other threads where you could do so.
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.
votes are meant to represent/indicate who people would like to see in office. telling people they shouldn't vote for someone they want in office because the candidate is unlikely to win is antidemocratic.
even from a "practical" or utilitarian standpoint, votes for fringe candidates can signal to establishment parties how they should shift (in rhetoric if not policy) for future elections to capture precious percentages.
arguably the need for an alternative has never been greater (Gallup: Majority in U.S. Still Say a Thi...) ... at this point i'd venture most of what turns people out to the polls is more anger/fear toward the opposing major political candidate than it is a genuine belief the candidate they're voting for will actively work to improve our lot.
I guess I just object to saying "If that is your belief, not voting is logical." That requires narrowing voting down to "it doesn't matter which of the two main candidates win; their lives will not change either way", which isn't correct.
You don't know anyone like this? I've known many people that think the only ones benefiting from politics are the politicians. There are even plenty of people that post here that believe the Republican and Democratic parties are essentially the same.
votes are meant to represent/indicate who people would like to see in office. telling people they shouldn't vote for someone they want in office because the candidate is unlikely to win is antidemocratic.
even from a "practical" or utilitarian standpoint, votes for fringe candidates can signal to establishment parties how they should shift (in rhetoric if not policy) for future elections to capture precious percentages.
arguably the need for an alternative has never been greater (
Sounds like freedom of speech to me. I don’t see anything anti democratic about criticizing someone’s vote
You don't know anyone like this? I've known many people that think the only ones benefiting from politics are the politicians. There are even plenty of people that post here that believe the Republican and Democratic parties are essentially the same.
Of course. I'm just saying that:
So someone holding that belief and then suggesting that means their decision to not vote is logical is simply using "logic" (that is based on a faulty premise) as an excuse. They're not voting because they only care about what they believe directly impacts them in their immediate future. Fair enough I suppose, but there's no logic involved in that.
Sounds like freedom of speech to me. I don’t see anything anti democratic about criticizing someone’s vote
freedom of speech for sure. i'm not suggesting OP be jailed or tried for high treason. just that the rhetoric is antidemocratic. criticizing someone's vote is one thing, suggesting voting for anyone other than one of two parties is "shirking a responsibility all citizens should be expected to exercise" is bonkers. but probably a good number of people hold this belief bc we're that far into crazy town.
freedom of speech for sure. i'm not suggesting OP be jailed or tried for high treason. just that the rhetoric is antidemocratic. criticizing someone's vote is one thing, suggesting voting for anyone other than one of two parties is "shirking a responsibility all citizens should be expected to exercise" is bonkers. but probably a good number of people hold this belief bc we're that far into crazy town.
In any religion you're going to have a certain percentage of adherents who are zealots.
Bobo - are you sure it's a faulty premise?
Well, I certainly believe it is. Let's go back to your original post:
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.
Two parts to this. First of all, it seems fairly impossible to know if there will be no change to one's life based on which candidate wins, and I doubt that's often the case. But I'm possibly being too literal there - I'm sure there are some people whose lives won't be changed in a really significant way by which candidate wins. But the second part is basing a decision of whether to vote or not only on whether it has an impact on one's own life. If neither candidate makes a difference to someone personally, why wouldn't one want to determine which candidate is best for the country/environment/vulnerable classes, or whatever criteria one thinks would make the world a better place. If one can't be bothered to vote for any reason other than self interest, fair enough, but that's not a decision which required any logic to arrive at IMO.
Sure, but that's adding on a couple more layers. I think it's important to vote even when you're sure your own vote won't swing the balance (that's been my story for about the last 20 years in my ridings), but I'd agree there is a logic to that. And I'm not sure if I'm correctly interpreting your "chronically sick" comment, but if you're introducing a premise of someone for whom voting could be detrimental to their health, then of course I'd agree that's a factor.
IDK, maybe I'm getting too hung up on "logical", so I'll simplify to this. I believe that voting only if the result could benefit one personally is, absent of context, a shitty approach. I'm not going to judge any individual for it, because of course there are circumstances where voting is a big sacrifice, or very obviously a wasted vote and not worth the use of time, etc. But I think in the majority of cases where someone doesn't vote for a reason like that, it's primarily an excuse.
Sometimes voting is a small sacrifice in an attempt to make things better for others, support democracy, etc. Seems like a small price for living in a democracy.
Sure, but that's adding on a couple more layers. I think it's important to vote even when you're sure your own vote won't swing the balance (that's been my story for about the last 20 years in my ridings), but I'd agree there is a logic to that. And I'm not sure if I'm correctly interpreting your "chronically sick" comment, but if you're introducing a premise of someone for whom voting could be detrimental to their health, then of course I'd agree that's a factor.
IDK, maybe I'm getting too hung
sorry, deleted my comment after I got slowponied and saw your recent post that seemed reasonable.
generally agree with you overall.
grunching but i dont see how Biden can ever win this. He has lost so many voters on the israel issue.
