Is a 3rd Party vote a wasted vote?

[Deleted member 159002]

Imagine actually being opposed to this on its face.

I don't need to imagine. I am. If teachers, businesses owners, managers etc are prohibited from treating men/boys like men/boys, then that is an attack on their dignity.

 

[MMAisGod]

Most people are good with the system. Can't please everyone ever. As for why we have it, it's an inevitable result of our Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law If we changed it, we'd end up having coalitions formed that more or less matched up with the current system, with some other changes that I think a lot of advocates for changing the system would not like. I'd be open to discussing it (that is, to potentially supporting a change), but it's a lot more complicated than I think people appreciate (that should basically be my sig--ha).

That Duverger's Law read (looked it up more last night as well) was very insightful. I'll have to think deeper about my suggested change, as I agree it may be more complex than I gave it credit for. I think there would have to be a new process that has evolved from what we've learned if we took that route, but if it's too experimental to risk if it's too different, and the original proposition seems that it may cause a few unintended consequences.

As you describe it, maybe? But basically our system is designed to change slowly, and only in line with changes in public opinion. Look at the ACA. We passed a big overhaul of the healthcare system that expands access to gov't-provided coverage, creates a means for people shut out to get access to coverage (and provides for subsidies to help them pay for it if they can't afford it), increases regulations leading to more people getting coverage from work or through their parents, and pays for it all with higher taxes on the rich. That was hugely controversial and faced massive lobbying and united Republican opposition. But then when they regained control of the gov't, the changes were mostly too popular to reverse, and it looks like it'll stick. Democrats are now trying to expand even further, while Republicans still dream of rolling it back, but it's looking increasingly politically toxic for them to do so. That's how we get change, I think. Once in a while, a party is in position to do something big, and if they do and it works, it's hard to undo, and it gets expanded on (see also SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and more).

Good points, but one of the biggest flaws I find with the two party system is the opposition to obvious benefits for society. In your ACA example, the Republicans went to oppose it (a plan that as you explained came with massive benefits for society mind you), with literally no plan at all as an improvement alternative. I'm fine with listening to an argument why an alternative plan is better, even if I don't fully agree, but on paper it looks like they wanted to remove it for the sole reason that "Obama was involved". That isn't policy making, it's a direct result of the two party system with Republicans not wanting to give the "win" to Democrats with the ACA. Fortunately it gained enough traction that it wasn't replaced with a literal donut, but that's the power of counter productivity the two party system can produce. I'm not sure how it could be done after reading up some more on government history's, but I'd be all in on some sort of regulation or control that combats obvious measures that are taken against America's interests such as this.

The problem is that to set policy, you need the cooperation of a huge number of people in gov't. So really, the letter by the name is the most important thing. For that to change, the pattern of elected leaders' actions would have to change. You can have a really intelligent, decent, experienced candidate but if he's in X party and you oppose X party's agenda, he's not the guy you want because he can be expected to fight for X's agenda. The letter is effectively a pledge.

I will admit I've changed this stance here after reading up. The alternative looks worse, as I'm not a fan of having "38 coalitions that lead to a couple with the most power, while the 36 others form alliances with those two". You were dead on when you said our current system is an evolution of the system itself. I still feel we can continue to evolve it, but I'm not sure at the moment how without risking a worse scenario.

I think it would be good if he didn't have a seat, but the people of Florida disagree. He's going to reliably vote for whatever Republicans want so if that's what you want, he's the guy. That said, note that the GOP's *policy* agenda is largely unpopular with its own voters. In fact, accurately describing it (for example, saying that the Trump tax cuts were tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations) is often taken as a slur. But for Republican voters, it's more about repudiating popular culture and obnoxious college students than setting policy, and the policy agenda fits a narrative that is consistent with that.

This of everything sums up what I find the biggest problem of all, and this one is peak two party. You have Rick Scott, an abomination of a human, who has dedicated his life into lies, corruption, stealing from the poor, bribing, etc. This isn't CT, it's actually already proven and documented. Double that down with nothing that he was actually proposing to do was beneficial to anyone except a select few. What do you get? Rick wins the Senate seat. Why? Because can't let the D win so vote R. People are willingly and quite literally throwing away their interests to vote for the letter R in this case, caring not about anything else. I know an argument can be made in the ways of "technically he was fairly voted in by the people", which I can't argue since that is definitive democracy, but would there be any other scenario that he would have won without this system? I'd say an outstanding no. That party line vote outweighs the policy or character vote too often, which is my #1 problem with the system currently.

I think that the deeper problem is this one-two combination:

1. The "liberal media" CT
2. The existence of an alternate-reality media sphere.

The GOP can basically get away with any level of corruption and maladminstration because half the country simply will not believe any stories about it, and they will believe media outlets that will lie about it. That's not a problem with our governance system; it's a problem with our information environment. I think it's like blaming the cook if all you have to eat is shit. The cook is going to do his best and he might be good at his job, but fixing that problem is beyond his capacity.

I agree with the information part for sure. I believe almost all tv media/tv news is trash now, which feeds the issues. When you read the articles from websites, even Fox sometimes, they tend to be pretty solid. Information is so accessible you can simply subscribe to AP and Bloomberg and get alerts on your preferred reading. But most people turn on their tv or social media and get junk versions or emotionally charged versions of the news. Then when they are fed this, you'll get some radical takes like "did you see those stats, Obama taxed more poor people than anyone, MAGA 2020" or "did you see those stats, every politician in history is corrupt, except Bernie". Those are actually real life examples I've discussed with people. It removes a level of discourse because now instead of discussing the context of viability, you're discussing if they are accurate in their assessment. That is, fully, fully, fully powered by the media, social media, and disinformation. True, that it may be impossible to fix at this stage though.

 

[giusti825]

FYI, Trump is a Republican. And if you just mean that we want inexperienced people, I'd think that Trump's presidency is the strongest evidence we've yet had that experience is important.

No way.

What good is experience if it is mostly bad.

We should be voting out politicians with shit records and not letting them continue to fail upwards.

The reason trump was elected was because there were too many corrupt, career politicians taking bribes and selling out their constituencies.

A lot of people felt a billionaire would be less likely to do the same.....

Politicians with strong voting records and who refuse corporate bribes for their campaigns should be trusted over the "experience" of the corrupt political establishment....

 

[MVelsor]

I completely agree. Which is why I was saying we don't really have a left wing party. Historically we have had a far right and center right party.

Yeah, big yikes that this was actually a 21st century social, political and legal issue in a supposed first-world country. The Iraq War was already in full swing and Saddam's central government long gone at the time this ruling was made. It was still illegal in 30% of the US circa Summer 2003. That speaks not just to your point, but also the grip religious conservatism has historically held. Where was that freedom, liberty and limited government, bruh? <45>

Lawrence v. Texas (2003), 539 U.S. 558, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that American laws prohibiting private same-sex activity between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The Court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.[1][2][3][4]

 

[Danger Dave]

this is the first year i am voting in 20 years. Donald Trump.

voting 3rd party is great you all should do it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The Equality Act, which would prohibit transgender discrimination, passed the House with not a single Democrat voting against it. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h217 Virtually every Democrat presidential candidate has supported it.

Regarding third trimester abortion, here are the front-runners for President when asked "Should there be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks)? If so, what restrictions?" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/politics/democratic-candidates-abortion-survey.html

OK, I know what you're talking about now, but I disagree with your characterizations of both positions.

Can you clarify what you mean when you attach the label "extremism" to a politician or position? Here you seem to be indicating that what distinguishes extreme positions from mainstream positions is how much support they have. If that's how you conceptualize extremism, then this conception combined with your negative comment about extremism, seems to indicate that according to you what's normatively relevant is how popular a position is, rather than a position's content.

Kind of. I think it's difficult to describe a position that has mainstream support "extreme." I don't think that extreme positions are necessarily bad, but a well-designed democratic gov't will make it very hard for extremist positions to prevail.

I think our two-party system is only leading to polarization for the worse.

Our system of gov't works against polarization to some extent (because the parties are forced to try to have mainstream appeal). I'd look elsewhere for the causes of polarization.

Every position I mentioned is supported by elected officials and along party lines. They're all bad positions, and I think it's less likely they'd be mainstream if people could vote for multiple candidates.

Disagree that the Equality Act and that abortion being legal are bad policies. Not really in the scope of this discussion, though.

 

[MVelsor]

OK, I know what you're talking about now, but I disagree with your characterizations of both positions. Disagree that the Equality Act and that abortion being legal are bad policies. Not really in the scope of this discussion, though.

Context: He's a bit of a lunatic who has referred to gay people as "sub-human" and spoken fondly of the days when couples were physically assaulted and put in wheelchairs for holding hands.

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system. The Equality Act expands the categories of "public accommodations" to include places or establishments that provide goods, services or programs. It prohibits "establishment" from being construed to be limited to a physical facility or place.[1][2][3]

The objective problem with it resides here IMO.

It also updates the definitions of three terms:

* "sex" to include biological sex at birth, or gender identity.

* "sexual orientation" as heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality.

* "gender identity" as gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual's designated sex at birth.

And that's due to the ramifications of it on women's rights and exclusive spaces. Such as biological men allowed unfettered access to the latter on the mere stated claim of a gender identity; or running roughshod on biological women in competitive sports and the like. It's a very small part of the legislation (with less than nothing to do with sexual orientation) but the major crux nonetheless. It's stuff like this why LGB doesn't like being fused with T.

 

[Clippy]

Everyone needs to stop feeling this way and just DO IT

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Context: He's a bit of a lunatic who has referred to gay people as "sub-human" and spoken fondly of the days when couples were physically assaulted and put in wheelchairs for holding hands.

These are lies. First, I never said gay people are sub-human. Second, the post you're referring to was not an endorsement of violence. Though I thought homosexuality was immoral at the time, I was actually paraphrasing something a War Roomer wrote like 10 years ago. It was satire. It was poor taste nonetheless.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Good points, but one of the biggest flaws I find with the two party system is the opposition to obvious benefits for society. In your ACA example, the Republicans went to oppose it (a plan that as you explained came with massive benefits for society mind you), with literally no plan at all as an improvement alternative. I'm fine with listening to an argument why an alternative plan is better, even if I don't fully agree, but on paper it looks like they wanted to remove it for the sole reason that "Obama was involved". That isn't policy making, it's a direct result of the two party system with Republicans not wanting to give the "win" to Democrats with the ACA.

Drifting a little here, but I'd say that the reason that elected Republicans opposed it was that it pays for an expansion of the safety net with a tax on rich people and includes regulations that effectively increase compensation to employees at the expense of their employers, and both of those things are strongly opposed by Republicans. Of course that's not a popular message so the attacks involved ludicrous claims about the impact of the reforms on prices or claims that it was going to threaten Medicare or claims that it didn't do enough to ensure universal coverage (and Republicans opposing it from both the right and left simultaneously is part of what made an alternative that would satisfy true believers in the messaging literally impossible). But political bullshit aside, there was a real difference of opinion. And the Republican framing of the reform--the black president is going to take away from good, hard-working Americans and give to his ghetto friends (Limbaugh actually called it a form of slave reparations)--was popular with voters. I think a lot of voters are morons, but they still get (and should get) to vote.

This of everything sums up what I find the biggest problem of all, and this one is peak two party. You have Rick Scott, an abomination of a human, who has dedicated his life into lies, corruption, stealing from the poor, bribing, etc. This isn't CT, it's actually already proven and documented. Double that down with nothing that he was actually proposing to do was beneficial to anyone except a select few. What do you get? Rick wins the Senate seat. Why? Because can't let the D win so vote R. People are willingly and quite literally throwing away their interests to vote for the letter R in this case, caring not about anything else. I know an argument can be made in the ways of "technically he was fairly voted in by the people", which I can't argue since that is definitive democracy, but would there be any other scenario that he would have won without this system? I'd say an outstanding no. That party line vote outweighs the policy or character vote too often, which is my #1 problem with the system currently.

But the fact that he'll vote with the party almost all the time means that it doesn't really matter what kind of person he is. If that (Republican party-line voting) is something you like, he's an acceptable choice. Now to me, that's another reason--an important reason--NOT to support him, but again, what are you going to do? If we try to limit democracy, I think it's more likely that the kinds of interests that opposed the ACA would be the ones doing the limiting and getting their way. If the public sucks, democratic policy will suck. If the elite sucks, elite policy will suck. Can't blame the system for that.

I agree with the information part for sure. I believe almost all tv media/tv news is trash now, which feeds the issues. When you read the articles from websites, even Fox sometimes, they tend to be pretty solid. Information is so accessible you can simply subscribe to AP and Bloomberg and get alerts on your preferred reading. But most people turn on their tv or social media and get junk versions or emotionally charged versions of the news. Then when they are fed this, you'll get some radical takes like "did you see those stats, Obama taxed more poor people than anyone, MAGA 2020" or "did you see those stats, every politician in history is corrupt, except Bernie". Those are actually real life examples I've discussed with people. It removes a level of discourse because now instead of discussing the context of viability, you're discussing if they are accurate in their assessment. That is, fully, fully, fully powered by the media, social media, and disinformation. True, that it may be impossible to fix at this stage though.

Yeah, see above. Sucks that a lot of voters are stupid. As Churchill said:

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

 

[MMAisGod]

Drifting a little here, but I'd say that the reason that elected Republicans opposed it was that it pays for an expansion of the safety net with a tax on rich people and includes regulations that effectively increase compensation to employees at the expense of their employers, and both of those things are strongly opposed by Republicans. Of course that's not a popular message so the attacks involved ludicrous claims about the impact of the reforms on prices or claims that it was going to threaten Medicare or claims that it didn't do enough to ensure universal coverage (and Republicans opposing it from both the right and left simultaneously is part of what made an alternative that would satisfy true believers in the messaging literally impossible). But political bullshit aside, there was a real difference of opinion. And the Republican framing of the reform--the black president is going to take away from good, hard-working Americans and give to his ghetto friends (Limbaugh actually called it a form of slave reparations)--was popular with voters. I think a lot of voters are morons, but they still get (and should get) to vote.



But the fact that he'll vote with the party almost all the time means that it doesn't really matter what kind of person he is. If that (Republican party-line voting) is something you like, he's an acceptable choice. Now to me, that's another reason--an important reason--NOT to support him, but again, what are you going to do? If we try to limit democracy, I think it's more likely that the kinds of interests that opposed the ACA would be the ones doing the limiting and getting their way. If the public sucks, democratic policy will suck. If the elite sucks, elite policy will suck. Can't blame the system for that.



Yeah, see above. Sucks that a lot of voters are stupid. As Churchill said:

I gotta conduct quite a few reviews today and tomorrow so I'll probably be too busy to respond accordingly, but this was a great conversation on this topic.

 

[MVelsor]

These are lies. First, I never said gay people are sub-human. Second, the post you're referring to was not an endorsement of violence. Though I thought homosexuality was immoral at the time, I was actually paraphrasing something a War Roomer wrote like 10 years ago. It was satire. It was poor taste nonetheless.

I support hate speech.

 

[ineverpost]

If 3rd parties get enough votes in a general election, they qualify for additional funds in future elections. Only money can win an election, so no, it is not a wasted vote to help your 3rd party get more money .

 

[BForrester]

In some elections, yes.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

OK, I know what you're talking about now, but I disagree with your characterizations of both positions.



Kind of. I think it's difficult to describe a position that has mainstream support "extreme." I don't think that extreme positions are necessarily bad, but a well-designed democratic gov't will make it very hard for extremist positions to prevail.



Our system of gov't works against polarization to some extent (because the parties are forced to try to have mainstream appeal). I'd look elsewhere for the causes of polarization.



Disagree that the Equality Act and that abortion being legal are bad policies. Not really in the scope of this discussion, though.

What about my characterization of those positions that you disagree with?

Imagine that during the next recession one party wants the federal government to provide every unemployed person with a job, while the other party wants to eliminate entire agencies and welfare programs. I think it's clear that these are both extreme positions regardless of if they're supported along party lines by elected officials. But according to your notion of extreme -- the one you find normatively relevant -- they would not be extreme positions, but rather mainstream. In such a scenario a handful of politicians who wanted 'only' stimulus spending and a tax cut would be the advocates of extremism. But that seems preposterous. Or to use another example, imagine that Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue, and his party continues to support him, holding a majority in at least one chamber of Congress. I think holding the position that the President should be supported even if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue is extreme, and that wouldn't change even if it became a "mainstream" position. And, of course, the Nazi platform was supported by elected officials. Were they not extreme? I'm highlighting a different concept of extremism than you, but unlike yours, I find the one I'm raising normatively relevant.

Let me break down your position as I understand it:

1 Ranked voting would lead to an increase in the number of extremists being elected.
2 The concept of "extreme" being referred to here is defined in contrast to mainstream. Not being widely held by elected officials makes certain positions extreme.
3 This is the normatively relevant concept of extremism.
4 Extremism is bad.
5 We should oppose ranked voting.

I think you're mistaken on 3, 4, and 5. The concept of extremism that you find normatively relevant is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If being popular among elected officials chosen by non-ranked voting at a given moment made positions worth preserving there would be no reason to ever vote for candidates who challenged the status quo. On the other hand, if being popular among elected officials chosen by non-ranked voting at a given moment has no bearing on whether or not a policy is good, then we shouldn't oppose switching to a voting system that would increase the likelihood of the current popular positions being replaced by new positions. MLK:

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

Sticking with the issue of abortion, pro-life Democrats have become an endangered species. Meanwhile, their party has moved towards less restrictions (e.g. supporting the right to third trimester abortions), while the GOP has moved towards more restrictions (e.g. supporting prohibiting abortion even in cases of rape). Meanwhile the public lies somewhere in the middle. Only 18% of Americans think a woman should be able to get an abortion any time she wants during her pregnancy, and only 18% of Americans think a woman should only be able to get an abortion if her life is in danger (9%) or never be able to get an abortion (9%). http://maristpoll.marist.edu/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-poll-results-6/#sthash.mtAT4frm.dpbs

On gun control, a significant majority of Americans want stricter gun control (background checks for private sales; bans on high capacity magazines; bans on "assault-style" weapons) but none of these are likely to become law any time soon. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...r-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/

I think it'd be less likely we'd have such polarized government if people could vote for multiple candidates. The current system seems to create a positive feedback loop where people dig in their heels and vote for candidates who support polarizing views because the other side nominated a candidate who has polarizing views. This leads to many citizens 'holding their nose' and voting for the 'lessers of two evils' or staying home because they feel alienated by both parties, who the voters identify as pandering to special interests groups.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Not a War Room regular obviously. I’m just curious why people think a 3rd Party vote is a wasted vote.

Personally I think the two party system causes too big of a divide in the people and they both seem to lean too far in one direction.

At this point it’s pretty clear that a 3rd Party has no chance to win for the foreseeable future but if people who believe in a 3rd Party continue to vote Democrat or Republican they will never grow big enough to become a real threat.

If you believe in a 3rd Party or even believe that the the two party system is failing us then isn’t it hypocritical to vote Democrat or Republican? And don’t you think it’s your duty to vote how you actually feel?

I ask this as someone who hasn’t voted in almost 20 years but is starting to feel guilty. I won’t vote Republican or Democrat anymore so you can see my vote as wasted either way but no 3rd Party will have a chance to grow if I continue to sit on the sidelines. I should point out that I support whoever the president is because I want the country to succeed but I don’t vote for them.

No. I voted 3rd party in 2016 because Hilldog and Trump were both unacceptable