Alexander II
Active member
Given two main choices in a national election, neither of which you would want to see as president, each for their own reasons, how would you vote?
Voter's Dilemma
- Thread starter Alexander II
- Start date
- Status
Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
Bernie Sanders once said something to this affect:
"if everyone who said ' I'd vote for that guy if I thought he could win' would actually vote for that guy, He Would Win!"
I am a huge advocate for the demolition of the Electoral College, the Federal Elections Commission, and the two-party system that those two institutions establish by default. However, none of these changes would matter if citizens will not vote their conscience! If everyone would do that and actually research who embodies their beliefs and values, we would see a multi-party system that gave a much more accurate view of American society as a whole and the one who would win the election would embody the largest portion of the American population. This crap of voting for the Reps or the Dems (even though you hate them both!) just because no one else can win, THATS A CRIME AGAINST THE VERY SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY!
Vote your conscience! Vote third party! Vote Gary Johnson for President in 2016!
"if everyone who said ' I'd vote for that guy if I thought he could win' would actually vote for that guy, He Would Win!"
I am a huge advocate for the demolition of the Electoral College, the Federal Elections Commission, and the two-party system that those two institutions establish by default. However, none of these changes would matter if citizens will not vote their conscience! If everyone would do that and actually research who embodies their beliefs and values, we would see a multi-party system that gave a much more accurate view of American society as a whole and the one who would win the election would embody the largest portion of the American population. This crap of voting for the Reps or the Dems (even though you hate them both!) just because no one else can win, THATS A CRIME AGAINST THE VERY SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY!
Vote your conscience! Vote third party! Vote Gary Johnson for President in 2016!
I guess that's the dilemma most people are experiencing right now, huh? Australian choices are much the same. Labor reckons they can change everything with a magic wand, and liberals would bend over backwards to appease chinese people who want to buy Australian land. There seems to be no hope, unless you look at katters Australian, but they're in a situation similar to UKIP in England - people can't get past two party preferred, and it sucks.
its easy for you Americans though, considering you've got God as the republican frontrunner.
its easy for you Americans though, considering you've got God as the republican frontrunner.
Woot
Well-known member
It's not a cosmic coincidence that Party A and Party B are always getting almost exactly 50% of the vote each.
Each party desperately tries to win over as much of the population as possible, and they change to reflect the things that people like.
Because of this they're extremely similar, they do the same wrong shit over and over, they don't follow any clear or intelligent ideology, they're just broadly tolerable to as many demographics as they can appeal to. That's democracy for you.
If you always vote third party or never vote at all, the 2 main parties will not give a shit about you, your vote has no influence, you're just one of those X number of guys who always vote Green and have no affect on the outcome of the actual race.
But occasionally voting third party or failing to turn out can send a message. The main parties have to change and win their lost voters back.
But in the meantime, a general election is lost. Is slightly changing Party A for future elections worth giving Party B power for 4 or 8 years?
In general I think it's most productive to vote for the lesser of the 2 main evils. If lesser evils keep winning politicians have to become less evil. The only problem with democracy, I think, is identifying the lesser evil. When people think the most evil candidate is whichever one won't let transgenders into bathrooms, RIP effective democracy.
Each party desperately tries to win over as much of the population as possible, and they change to reflect the things that people like.
Because of this they're extremely similar, they do the same wrong shit over and over, they don't follow any clear or intelligent ideology, they're just broadly tolerable to as many demographics as they can appeal to. That's democracy for you.
If you always vote third party or never vote at all, the 2 main parties will not give a shit about you, your vote has no influence, you're just one of those X number of guys who always vote Green and have no affect on the outcome of the actual race.
But occasionally voting third party or failing to turn out can send a message. The main parties have to change and win their lost voters back.
But in the meantime, a general election is lost. Is slightly changing Party A for future elections worth giving Party B power for 4 or 8 years?
In general I think it's most productive to vote for the lesser of the 2 main evils. If lesser evils keep winning politicians have to become less evil. The only problem with democracy, I think, is identifying the lesser evil. When people think the most evil candidate is whichever one won't let transgenders into bathrooms, RIP effective democracy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rin
Oathkeeper
Democracy is just really shitty. Good, productive people don't want to be politicians. Politics is for people who want more power and are willing to waste a lot of time and money to get there.
Eventually people realized - hey, why don't we limit the power our leaders have? This idea picked up so much momentum that dictatorship was actually viewed as a negative thing.
Now we actually have to pick the lesser evil?
Eventually people realized - hey, why don't we limit the power our leaders have? This idea picked up so much momentum that dictatorship was actually viewed as a negative thing.
Now we actually have to pick the lesser evil?
Alexander II
Active member
I disagree that democracy is completely broken and leads to only corrupt leaders who are only in it for the power. However, I do agree that, given the current setup, democracy isn't as efficient as it could be, nor does it directly reflect voter preference. For example, if you live in a deep red congressional district and democrats make up 20% of the population in that district, you have little say in who your reprentative is, because you are shut out of the republican nomination process. Obviously, the same goes for the independents in the US who live in states with closed primaries. That is why I am a huge proponent of moving to single-transferable vote (STV). It allows a voter to choose the candidate he/she is most comfortable with while allowing him/her to ensure that their vote still counts of their first choice doesn't win. CGP Grey has an amazing series on this topic. Below the playlist he made on the topic of you are interested. There are some side notes not included in this, but I couldn't find a playlist for them. Enjoy!
Ernsters
Well-known member
Patrick MacFarlane
Commander-in-Chief of Russian Armed Forces TKR RP
I agree one-hundred percent!
While this may be true now, this was not always destined to be. If the American population had not given into this general-conservative versus general-liberal over and over again going back to the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican parties in the late 1800's, then we wouldn't be in this mess. The problem arose when we essentially gave up our true desires for this generalized opinions that kinda sorta align with our own. If citizens had been voting for their conscience the entire time, then we would have very many dominant parties, no FEC effectively eliminating third parties, and we would see actual individualized platforms. We would have people breaking from this fuzzy-edged traditional conservative or liberal platform and actually standing for something specific.
You are correct, the voting for third parties now, even in large numbers is a slow change. The parties change as they see voters leave, and as you said, this affects the elections. Then we have people like Sanders who are outliers from the beginning of the race and yet has pressed Clinton, as far as I can see, further left than she ever was before these past two years. It is a slow change but it has to happen to preserve hope in a one day restored democracy that reflects the opinions of the nation's people rather than the regions of the people.
I do not believe that you can treat people this way. It is not the democratic way to simplify the populace into numbers for evaluating. One cannot evaluate the "lesser of two evils" objectively, nor the average change in evil-ness over time. I think that, in principle, this should work but humans themselves are too dynamic to be simplified so far. You lose too much detail that is needed for proper determination of which person is best for the roles that they are being presented with at the time.
I agree here but must add, if the American people felt that they had more than two options (the two presented by the Dems and the Reps) then we might not be seeing it as such a large issue in way of dividing the nation as a wedge into two, evermore angry factions. George Washington as he left office warned of the political parties and sectionalism that would fester and turn the nation against itself and the eruption of the War Between the States confirmed his belief. We are seeing it again only this time the party names have changed and the key issues dividing the people are not slavery, states' rights, and federal power; they are gay marriage, abortion, bathrooms, and federal authority. It has erupted before and as long as the nation is divided against itself, the volcano will erupt again.
Other: It's not really that simple.
How evil is the worst candidate? How much better is the "lesser of two evils" candidate? How much better is the "good third party" candidate than the "lesser of two evils" candidate?
On a 1-10 scale where 10 is good, if the choice is between a 1, a 2, and a non-viable 9, I'll probably vote for the 9. Same as if the choice is between say a 4 or 5, a 6, and a 9. But if the choice is between a 1, a 6, and a non-viable 9, I'm voting for the 6.
I'm not a big fan of Hillary's but she's not horrible to me, she's about a 6 out of 10. If the opponent was some tolerable Republican candidate that I disagreed with ideologically but could otherwise generally respect, like Romney or McCain, a 3 or 4 out of 10, I might consider voting 3rd party if one of them was really good. But with Trump on the ballot, I'm 100% going to vote for Clinton to stop him. He's horrible on multiple levels: would have a totally reckless and dangerous foreign policy, actively and deliberately promotes racism and bigotry. He is totally unqualified, undignified, and not someone I can remotely respect.
How evil is the worst candidate? How much better is the "lesser of two evils" candidate? How much better is the "good third party" candidate than the "lesser of two evils" candidate?
On a 1-10 scale where 10 is good, if the choice is between a 1, a 2, and a non-viable 9, I'll probably vote for the 9. Same as if the choice is between say a 4 or 5, a 6, and a 9. But if the choice is between a 1, a 6, and a non-viable 9, I'm voting for the 6.
I'm not a big fan of Hillary's but she's not horrible to me, she's about a 6 out of 10. If the opponent was some tolerable Republican candidate that I disagreed with ideologically but could otherwise generally respect, like Romney or McCain, a 3 or 4 out of 10, I might consider voting 3rd party if one of them was really good. But with Trump on the ballot, I'm 100% going to vote for Clinton to stop him. He's horrible on multiple levels: would have a totally reckless and dangerous foreign policy, actively and deliberately promotes racism and bigotry. He is totally unqualified, undignified, and not someone I can remotely respect.
- Status