Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Voting for lesser of two evils?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,909 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 September 2016 - 08:21 PM

I have noticed that the idea of voting for the lesser evil is an idea that is very much scoffed down upon by many online and by my peers. This is something that I cannot understand, as I am of the belief that a Trump presidency would be so extraordinarily detrimental to the U.S. and worldwide relations that practically anyone else that is at least somewhat competent would be better. For those of you that hold the opinion that voting for the lesser evil is a terrible concept, why do you think this way? 



#2 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,173 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 September 2016 - 11:13 PM

On one hand you have a racist bigot, on the other hand you have a corrupt murderer. I'm not American, but I can understand why they don't like their choices.

#3 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,738 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 September 2016 - 11:19 PM

On one hand you have a racist bigot, on the other hand you have a corrupt murderer. I'm not American, but I can understand why they don't like their choices.

Corrupt murderer?



#4 talbs

talbs
  • 4,055 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 04:52 AM

Corrupt murderer?

 

Benghazi? Also google "Clinton Murders" and see how many people close to the family have died under suspicious circumstances. You will need your tin foil hat, but there are some interesting reads nonetheless. Or look up Seth Rich, who many suggest was providing info to WikiLeaks, before he was knocked off at least.



#5 FelisNoctua

FelisNoctua

  • 657 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 07:14 AM

I am of the belief that a Trump presidency would be so extraordinarily detrimental to the U.S. and worldwide relations that practically anyone else that is at least somewhat competent would be better.

 

This is my opinion, and on the surface it seems completely rational. Because I know that we shouldn't "go with our gut" I use things like

 

http://votesmart.org/ and https://www.isidewith.com/

 

to get an idea of where candidates (and more) stand on the things that I really care about. I thought I'd vote Libertarian this year, as last time I voted Green Party, but this time Clinton blows away everyone else when considering my issues.

 

I encourage people to play around with the sites, even just I Side With, because you never know. You might HATE some aspect of one of the candidates, but find they are the one that will be more likely to vote the way you think the country should be run.

 

You can't know everything, so look to the experts to help you suss it out.


Benghazi? Also google "Clinton Murders" and see how many people close to the family have died under suspicious circumstances. You will need your tin foil hat, but there are some interesting reads nonetheless. Or look up Seth Rich, who many suggest was providing info to WikiLeaks, before he was knocked off at least.

 

I'd also encourage people to only look at things like Convictions.. because if we're going to go with "we think their family killed people" don't you also have to go with "we think he raped a bunch of women"?



#6 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,173 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 03:44 PM

Corrupt murderer?


I think talbs covered it (I would tag if I knew how to on my phone). I hate to say it but I would probably vote for her just on the basis that I think Trump is significantly worse for anyone who is not a white male.

#7 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 05:13 PM

Honestly, a trump presidency scares me less than a clinton one, even though I know trump is crazier. The reason it scares me less is that congress realizes that he is crazy. Even the majority of the republicans. They would block him from doing many of the crazy things we are all worried he would do. I wouldn't be suprised if Trump was impeached within the first 2 years in office, leaving the country with a sane president as the VP took over. 



#8 Kway

Kway
  • Proud to be a Brony

  • 1,200 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 05:24 PM

There is always another choice. Just vote for somebody that isn't the big two names right now.



#9 Generic

Generic
  • 351 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 05:53 PM

There is always another choice. Just vote for somebody that isn't the big two names right now.

 

That's not really a realistic choice under the current system unfortunately. Say someone hates Clinton 50% but they hate Trump 90%, if they go and vote for Gary Johnson or something then there's 1 less person voting for Clinton and it's more likely Trump will win. Voting for a 3rd party is the same as burning your vote. I wish it was a more realistic option.



#10 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 06:45 PM

That's not really a realistic choice under the current system unfortunately. Say someone hates Clinton 50% but they hate Trump 90%, if they go and vote for Gary Johnson or something then there's 1 less person voting for Clinton and it's more likely Trump will win. Voting for a 3rd party is the same as burning your vote. I wish it was a more realistic option.

No, voting a third party isn't burning a vote. That is like saying everyone who voted for bernie is the primaries wasted their vote. It is like saying that if you have ever voted for someone who lost, you wasted your vote. Not voting is wasting your vote. Voting--even for someone who doesn't have a real shot at winning--is exercising your right to have your voice heard. Even if you vote "none of the above candidates" you are showing the government you disapprove of their choices, which is still exercising your right to vote. The republicans and democrats want you to think that what you say is true, but voting your feeling is voting appropriately. If more people are willing to start voting for who they truly believes represents them best, we could eventually break out of this 2 party system. And this cycle is an amazing place to start, since both candidates are total shit. Casting a vote--for anyone ever--is never a wasted vote.



#11 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,909 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 07:10 PM

Benghazi? Also google "Clinton Murders" and see how many people close to the family have died under suspicious circumstances. You will need your tin foil hat, but there are some interesting reads nonetheless. Or look up Seth Rich, who many suggest was providing info to WikiLeaks, before he was knocked off at least.

What about Benghazi was Clinton's fault? I'm not too informed on the whole debacle, so it would be nice if you could point some things out.


No, voting a third party isn't burning a vote. That is like saying everyone who voted for bernie is the primaries wasted their vote. It is like saying that if you have ever voted for someone who lost, you wasted your vote. Not voting is wasting your vote. Voting--even for someone who doesn't have a real shot at winning--is exercising your right to have your voice heard. Even if you vote "none of the above candidates" you are showing the government you disapprove of their choices, which is still exercising your right to vote. The republicans and democrats want you to think that what you say is true, but voting your feeling is voting appropriately. If more people are willing to start voting for who they truly believes represents them best, we could eventually break out of this 2 party system. And this cycle is an amazing place to start, since both candidates are total shit. Casting a vote--for anyone ever--is never a wasted vote.

Unfortunately, that's not how voting in today's two party system really works. There is political concept known as the spoiler effect. Here is an example of how it works:

 

Clinton is liberal, Trump is conservative. Let's say without any third party candidates the popular vote would be roughly 50-50.

Now add a third party candidate who is somewhat liberal but not as much as Clinton. The voters that identify left of the political spectrum look at this new contender with approval and start to vote for the third party candidate. However, conservative voters would not vote for the third party candidate as the candidate is liberal. Now the voter spread looks like this (Clinton-third party-Trump): 40-10-50. Trump now wins! 

 

The spoiler effect is extremely pervasive in American politics today. This is one reason why third parties have always done so badly in the era of the two party system. As an addendum, many people were concerned the spoiler effect would give Trump the win if Michael Bloomberg ran for president, as his stance is socially liberal and would take a portion of the liberal vote. 



#12 Generic

Generic
  • 351 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 September 2016 - 08:38 PM

No, voting a third party isn't burning a vote. That is like saying everyone who voted for bernie is the primaries wasted their vote. It is like saying that if you have ever voted for someone who lost, you wasted your vote. Not voting is wasting your vote. Voting--even for someone who doesn't have a real shot at winning--is exercising your right to have your voice heard. Even if you vote "none of the above candidates" you are showing the government you disapprove of their choices, which is still exercising your right to vote. The republicans and democrats want you to think that what you say is true, but voting your feeling is voting appropriately. If more people are willing to start voting for who they truly believes represents them best, we could eventually break out of this 2 party system. And this cycle is an amazing place to start, since both candidates are total shit. Casting a vote--for anyone ever--is never a wasted vote.

 

I was typing up a response to this, but @ortin already summed it up better than I ever could. It's a big reason why Bernie didn't run as an independent - and why (I heard) Trump was trying to goad Bernie into running as an independent. The liberal vote would split and Trump would have a much higher chance to win.

 

Your way of thinking is amiable, but unless everyone started choosing obscure parties or voting none of the above, telling people who dislike one of the 2 parties much more than the other to do that is just bad advice. If X ends up beating Y by 1 vote on the year I voted 3rd party, but I really hate X... what good was voting 3rd party who received 0.001% of all votes? Voting 3rd party or none of the above is only really an option if you hate both of the biparty leaders completely equally. And even then, it's the same as not voting at all. YES technically if everyone thought the same that year and actually voted none/3rd party it'd make waves. But there needs to be a bigger movement outside of just individual thought. There would need to be large scale rallies to vote a 3rd party or none of the above.

 

Maybe next election there will be. I feel like it's only a matter of time before even worse options pop up.


Edited by Generic, 27 September 2016 - 08:41 PM.


#13 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,203 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 06:18 AM

I have noticed that the idea of voting for the lesser evil is an idea that is very much scoffed down upon by many online and by my peers. This is something that I cannot understand, as I am of the belief that a Trump presidency would be so extraordinarily detrimental to the U.S. and worldwide relations that practically anyone else that is at least somewhat competent would be better. For those of you that hold the opinion that voting for the lesser evil is a terrible concept, why do you think this way? 

I can't speak for anyone else and their intrinsic motives, only mine. I refuse to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' because there are certain non-negotiable things that I can't vote for when there is someone running who supports my viewpoint. If no one supported those things, I would pick one based on what was closest to how I feel.



#14 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 06:19 AM

I just think this cycle is the time to do it. Since really, both options are shit. I don't believe in recent history has america had to choose between 2 such terrible choices. And spoiler theory assumes there is only 1 independent choice that is taking votes from only one party. 

 

http://www.burnmyvote.org/

 

This site matches you up with someone across party lines hoping to help alleviate that fear.



#15 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,203 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 06:59 AM

I have been seeing a lot of people who were going to vote for Bernie decide they'll be voting for Trump now. Can someone explain that to me?


I just think this cycle is the time to do it. Since really, both options are shit. I don't believe in recent history has america had to choose between 2 such terrible choices. And spoiler theory assumes there is only 1 independent choice that is taking votes from only one party. 

 

http://www.burnmyvote.org/

 

This site matches you up with someone across party lines hoping to help alleviate that fear.

I did it, but I can't help but think I got matched with some drug addict who is going to forget to vote anyway



#16 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧️🌩️🌧️




  • 3,603 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 07:47 AM

This video does a great job of explaining our current voting system:



It goes into why first-past-the-post systems inevitably end up as two-party voting and why voting third-party is a shitty choice (as @ortin and @Generic succinctly summed up). A better alternative is a voting system where we can number our choices in order. 

 

Both of these videos really go into the spoiler effect, while offering up an alternative that eliminates strategic voting, or voting for the lesser of two evils.


And because I felt it was necessary - a video on why the electoral college is problematic for the popular vote and does not fairly represent what Americans want:



#17 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,173 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:26 AM

What about Benghazi was Clinton's fault? I'm not too informed on the whole debacle, so it would be nice if you could point some things out.

 

 

 

Where does Clinton play into this? Well, aside from being the Secretary of State — an important cabinet position — she later took responsibility for the security at the compound, or rather, a lack thereof. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts," Clinton said, in an interview with CNN. "The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs, and make a considered decision."

 

 

With the expectation to uncover more evidence, Republicans then formed the House Select Committee on Benghazi in May 2014, to examine government policies related to the consulate attack. As State Department officials responded to the request, it was revealed that Clinton's State Department email account had no correspondence

As a result, the State Department formally asked Clinton to turn over her emails from her private server, which started the now-infamous email scandal. Of the 50,000 pages of emails Clinton provided to the State Department, roughly 900 were in reference to Libyaand were later sent to the House Committee. 

 

Clinton has been investigated thoroughly by the House Committee, most recently at aBenghazi hearing in October (by then, she was a presidential nominee). While it could have stood to tarnish her presidential campaign, she staved off overly inflated accusations that seemed to fit the Republican narrative of the story — that she was the most responsible, and was negligent to respond properly.  

 

https://www.yahoo.co...379.html?ref=gs

 

I think those two quotes sum up what happened with no theorizing on why she did it. Because if you want to get into that, you'll need to fasten your tin foil hat. 



#18 Generic

Generic
  • 351 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:34 AM

I have been seeing a lot of people who were going to vote for Bernie decide they'll be voting for Trump now. Can someone explain that to me?

While I'm not American and I'm not advocating for Trump (I probably wouldn't vote if I was American, or I'd have to give it more thought), I can totally see why people are moving from Bernie to Trump.

The main point is a vehement dislike of Clinton. Bernie and Hillary have really very little in common. Even in their demeanor, Bernie is like someone's sweet old grandpa who just wants to help you out while Hillary (feels) like a witch trying to screw you over. (And Trump is like a child who's smart for a 12 year old). If you can't vote for the genuine seeming grandpa, a lot of people would rather vote for the transparent child than the witch you don't trust. Bernie was, in my opinion, quite transparent and seemed well meaning. Trump just spews bs, but at least it doesn't feel as underhanded as Clinton. Also I imagine people resent Clinton because it feels like she stole the vote from Bernie. Honestly I don't feel like Bernie would have a problem beating Trump, given the chance, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.

Also Hillary doesn't even strike me as actually liberal at all. I don't believe her when she tells us her values because she's lied SO much about her values in the past. Trump bses a lot in general, but at least it's not as hard to understand what he values. They both flip flop a ton and they'll both do anything for votes.

Bernie and Hillary were two completely different breed of Democrat. People advocated to vote for Bernie because of things like the free tuition. People tell you to vote for Clinton because she'd be the first woman president, because "she's the closest thing to Bernie" and because they don't like Trump.

This is all my opinion, and I didn't put a ton of thought into it. Just kind of my ideas on why.

Edited by Generic, 28 September 2016 - 08:54 AM.


#19 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,173 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:43 AM

Also Hillary doesn't even strike me as actually liberal at all. I don't believe her when she tells us her values because she's lied SO much about her values in the past. Trump bses a lot in general, but at least it's not as hard to understand what he values.

 

I 100% don't agree with that. :p

 

Trump has flip flopped on a buttload (yes, a buttload) of issues. What he values is votes.

 

This is a ridiculously long list of examples.

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...sitions-n547801



#20 Generic

Generic
  • 351 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:48 AM

I 100% don't agree with that. :p

Trump has flip flopped on a buttload (yes, a buttload) of issues. What he values is votes.

This is a ridiculously long list of examples.

http://www.nbcnews.c...sitions-n547801


I was unsure on that too when I posted it honestly. You can't exactly call the man predictable. But I guess my point was they both flip flop so much, and they both will do anything for votes. I'll check out the site, but I always take these media outlets with a grain of salt because it seems like way too much media has a strong anti-Trump bias. That's why I watched the entire uncut debate, try to get an unbiased view of both of them.

#21 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,173 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:51 AM

I was unsure on that too when I posted it honestly. You can't exactly call the man predictable. But I guess my point was they both flip flop so much, and they both will do anything for votes. I'll check out the site, but I always take these media outlets with a grain of salt because it seems like way too much media has a strong anti-Trump bias. That's why I watched the entire uncut debate, try to get an unbiased view of both of them.

 

You're right - Old Lady Clinton has flip flopped on a lot of things, as well. Except she does it with more spunk and less spray tan so I like her slightly more.



#22 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧️🌩️🌧️




  • 3,603 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 08:58 AM

John Oliver discusses the scandals voters are most concerned with, for both candidates:



I think this illustrates, to a degree, the hatred for Hillary. But I feel like a lot of the hatred (not all) for her is a bit baseless. I dislike her but I can't tell if that's internalized misogyny, something valid, or a combination thereof.



#23 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 09:11 AM

I gotta agree with @Kaddict on this one. Viewing a 3rd party vote as a wasted vote is such a gross way of looking at it, and by gross I mean vulgar. Viewing politics as black and white like that is the reason we're in this situation to begin with. You speak of holding large-scale rallies to get people to vote 3rd party, but denounce voting third party as a waste? Voting is the whole point. Rallies are nice, but they're worthless without the votes. So why not vote? 

 

The issue of voting third party being damaging for Clinton is really only an issue in a few swing states, mine not being one of them, so I suppose it's a little easier of a decision for me(not that I'm gonna vote 3rd, I'm undecided). But if those states somehow (not likely in the least) sway enough votes away from Clinton and Trump ends up being president, that's not the 3rd party voter's fault. That's the fault of the DNC not taking 3rd parties seriously, or the huge number of registered voters that never do. Don't blame the people trying to help solve the problem.



#24 Generic

Generic
  • 351 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 09:21 AM

I gotta agree with @Kaddict on this one. Viewing a 3rd party vote as a wasted vote is such a gross way of looking at it, and by gross I mean vulgar. Viewing politics as black and white like that is the reason we're in this situation to begin with. You speak of holding large-scale rallies to get people to vote 3rd party, but denounce voting third party as a waste? Voting is the whole point. Rallies are nice, but they're worthless without the votes. So why not vote?

The issue of voting third party being damaging for Clinton is really only an issue in a few swing states, mine not being one of them, so I suppose it's a little easier of a decision for me(not that I'm gonna vote 3rd, I'm undecided). But if those states somehow (not likely in the least) sway enough votes away from Clinton and Trump ends up being president, that's not the 3rd party voter's fault. That's the fault of the DNC not taking 3rd parties seriously, or the huge number of registered voters that never do. Don't blame the people trying to help solve the problem.


Of course the system is to blame for 3rd parties not getting a fair shake. The system is broken. I wish I believed any 3rd party had a shot, but I genuinely do not feel like individual voting is the way to go about it. There needs to be a larger change than just a few small percentage of people ditching their likely option to try to make a point that probably won't be heard. I personally just don't believe voting 3rd party is an option with the current system - I believe the system needs to change first.

I'm sorry for being vulgar. I'm just skeptical of unorganized thought bringing change, and I can imagine millions of people who voted 3rd party being upset when the candidate they hate more wins anyway.

#25 Coops

Coops
  • 🌧️🌩️🌧️




  • 3,603 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 September 2016 - 09:23 AM

I gotta agree with @Kaddict on this one. Viewing a 3rd party vote as a wasted vote is such a gross way of looking at it, and by gross I mean vulgar. Viewing politics as black and white like that is the reason we're in this situation to begin with. You speak of holding large-scale rallies to get people to vote 3rd party, but denounce voting third party as a waste? Voting is the whole point. Rallies are nice, but they're worthless without the votes. So why not vote? 

 

The issue of voting third party being damaging for Clinton is really only an issue in a few swing states, mine not being one of them, so I suppose it's a little easier of a decision for me(not that I'm gonna vote 3rd, I'm undecided). But if those states somehow (not likely in the least) sway enough votes away from Clinton and Trump ends up being president, that's not the 3rd party voter's fault. That's the fault of the DNC not taking 3rd parties seriously, or the huge number of registered voters that never do. Don't blame the people trying to help solve the problem.

But mathematically it is a waste. I can appreciate what you're saying and it shouldn't be that way, but it is. Our voting system is so broken and makes it impossible to legitimize a third-party candidate, especially when you factor in that debates never include alternate parties, media caters exclusively to two-party, etc. Math doesn't lie. We need a legitimate solution to our current voting system, which is unfair to the population as a whole, and not at all democratic when you examine it thoroughly. I posted a video above that discusses a legitimate option to replace our current system that prevents the spoiler effect. 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users