|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I think its dumb calling people dumb for voting third party They are. Everyone that voted for Johnson/Stein did not get what they wanted, nor would they ever. Johnson polled at 10% at his peak, I think, with Stein far below that. Like, just being pragmatic, it's a total loving waste of your vote.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
i think if i had voted i would have rather wasted my vote than vote for the very, very very slightly lesser of two cartoon evils like, at some point i just stopped caring
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:i think if i had voted i would have rather wasted my vote than vote for the very, very very slightly lesser of two cartoon evils Well I'm sure that's very comforting to all the people suffering in Trump's America. You didn't even vote? gently caress you, you can't complain then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:They are. Everyone that voted for Johnson/Stein did not get what they wanted, nor would they ever. Johnson polled at 10% at his peak, I think, with Stein far below that. Unless you lot get reform for preferential voting like we have in Australia, third party is just a bad vote. But who's gonna bring in a reform like that, doubt it suits the majors at all to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
I can't blame the voters for voting third party or not voting at all. Most of America did that. I blame the politicians and parties for not giving people anything to vote for except the now 2018 slogan of "I'm not as bad as that guy!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
That's been a thing for years though. I did a study in college of 2012 campaign ads and the only way to tell any difference between the candidates was to compare what bad things opponents' ads said about them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Not voting isn't a form of protest - it's a signal to those in power that you can be ignored. Under America's electoral system, voting third party is basically not voting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
On a national level, yes. Then again, voting for one of the two major parties that loses also is the same as not voting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Rugoberta Munchu posted:On a national level, yes. Then again, voting for one of the two major parties that loses also is the same as not voting. Yes, but you can't know who will lose before you vote (out of the main two parties, at least), so this is kind of a pointless thing to care about. Like, everyone thought Hillary was a shoo in but whoops turns out you can't predict elections that well!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Lol if you think voting is some expression of your moral purity and not just the process by which we pick our government from a pool of flawed candidates You know that one of those fuckers is going to be elected, so you should probably help steer the election toward the one that's likely to do the best job. Refusing to vote because you aren't excited about whatever the gently caress isn't a protest, it just means you find every choice equally acceptable, from which we can surmise that you're a big dumb moron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:i think if i had voted i would have rather wasted my vote than vote for the very, very very slightly lesser of two cartoon evils I don't think Hillary, for all her various faults, would have been turbofucking the US domestically and abroad by literally colluding with Russia, defunding Planned Parenthood, rolling back Obamacare and working herself up into a lather over North Korea (and all the other racist, sexist, fundie poo poo that Trump and his surrogates are pushing). You're seriously some kind of entitled rear end in a top hat if you think there is no difference and therefore it didn't merit your vote. Seriously, actual modern authoritarian regimes like Russia rely on apathy like yours to stay in power, you loving snivelling quisling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
I didnt vote because. gently caress it. God is dead and so am I.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:i have no qualms saying that every person quoted here needs to grow up Sorry you don't like fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:They are. Everyone that voted for Johnson/Stein did not get what they wanted, nor would they ever. Johnson polled at 10% at his peak, I think, with Stein far below that. I mean the logical end result of this is that you have to vote for whatever the democrats offer because they aren't the republicans which doesn't seem very democratic or practical in the long run. Like if the democrats can't field a half decent candidate then it's their drat fault when they lose, people withdrawing their support for lovely candidates is how democracy works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean the logical end result of this is that you have to vote for whatever the democrats offer because they aren't the republicans which doesn't seem very democratic or practical in the long run. Vote in primaries. Support good candidates in the primary as much as you can. Try to get them invited to debates, volunteer for them, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Vote in primaries. Support good candidates in the primary as much as you can. Try to get them invited to debates, volunteer for them, etc. Entirely fine but if they still field a pile of shite in a blue rosette then you're under no obligation to vote for it. Like this is really basic collective action, you withdraw what the bosses need in order to force them to capitulate, why on earth do the worthless cretins in charge have any reason to want to listen to you if you're going to vote for them anyway? Lockstep voters are a ticket to republican policies because they know they can do whatever they want and still ride the gravy train to government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
The problem is that withholding your support in this system means you get the greater of two evils instead. It's not a great system, but until we make a better one you aren't helping yourself by being too cool for the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Well why vote for the inferior evil? I wanna dive whole hog into evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Did anybody link Shaun's new vid? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxVfSqtt8 Watch out for hover mosques.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:They are. Everyone that voted for Johnson/Stein did not get what they wanted, nor would they ever. Johnson polled at 10% at his peak, I think, with Stein far below that. You don't necessarily vote 3rd party because you want that candidate to win. My state polled red before the election so I voted 3rd party to show I was not happy with the democratic nominee. The take home message from that should be for the democrats to look at what went wrong and do a little soul searching to correct the problem. However the democratic party is incapable of self reflection so it's a lost cause anyway. WampaLord posted:Vote in primaries. Support good candidates in the primary as much as you can. Try to get them invited to debates, volunteer for them, etc. Yeah this is good in theory but look at the hijinx pulled last primary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:The problem is that withholding your support in this system means you get the greater of two evils instead. Yes it does but again, taking whatever you're given also leads to lovely conditions by a slower route, at some point you have to eat the poo poo in order to get any better. That's how striking always works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
A reminder that the governor of my state won because he shot a bunch of stuff until it blew up in his campaign ad and that doing things to spite the poors, the blacks (especially the poor blacks), and the egghead college elitists is why the electoral map has looked like this since at least 2012. Voting D here on a national or state level is the same as voting L or G so might as well do whatever you want. Green on this map indicates fewer than 100% reported in that county, not that it went to the green party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:Are you sure though? From my experience the kind of person who is driven to make that kind of money is fundamentally broken in some way. Source: my friends' rich parents who are all stark raving loving mad. From my personal experience, the people I know who make that kind of money are just the sons/daughters of well-off professionals and follow what, to them, is the "normal" life path (go to elite schools, get good internship through nepotism, internship starts a chain reaction where you're always ahead of the competition). They don't really work much more or less than anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:24
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes it does but again, taking whatever you're given also leads to lovely conditions by a slower route, at some point you have to eat the poo poo in order to get any better. That's how striking always works. Striking works by actually hurting the bosses, and the money for dems hasn't really dried up, has it? Hillary didn't get the job, but she's still rich as gently caress and probably still doing speeches for piles of cash because she was still secretary of state. It's not a 1 to 1 comparison and you're kinda dumb for making it. Also accelerationism lol. Maybe vote in democrats and actually work to primary blue dogs. If you only give a poo poo about politics once in a blue moon then no poo poo you don't get a say over the candidates, and voting third party just fucks people over (even if you're in a "safe state" that's deep red or blue, working to change your local politics is where you start). You're showing up at the party at the last minute without bringing anything and complaining about what other people have brought. If you don't like it, put in a little effort and bring something. Sure Sally's casserole is garbage, but you still didn't bring anything, and her casserole is better than your nothing. Yeah, it's harder than showing up once every four years to spite slam jill stein, but it's gotta happen for anything good to get done.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
The change doesn't happen overnight and refusing to support poo poo candidates is not remotely mutually exclusive with attempting to support good ones, while supporting poo poo ones is counterproductive to supporting good ones because it only encourages the party to do whatever it can to get the poo poo ones in because they get votes. Vote for good candidates, don't vote for bad ones, both are preferable to voting for bad ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
WHY BONER NOW posted:You don't necessarily vote 3rd party because you want that candidate to win. My state polled red before the election so I voted 3rd party to show I was not happy with the democratic nominee. You've defeated your own argument here in 4 sentences. You admit that you voted third party to show your displeasure, but the Dems took away the wrong message. That's because that's how politics works. They're not going to try to get back third party voters, they're just going to try to swing R voters over, because they (correctly) assume third party voters are idiots. Suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils. It's not a moral compromise, it's how we make sure we don't get poo poo like President Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
It's also how you get the same thing but slower. Possibly also with a sad face while doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
I am struggling to understand how you can't see that most people won't vote for bad things. Even slightly less bad things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's also how you get the same thing but slower. But that's a good thing? Like, if we're a dying country, shouldn't we want to put that off for as long as possible, not go "lol full accelerationism now!" Kokoro Wish posted:I am struggling to understand how you can't see that most people won't vote for bad things. Even slightly less bad things. But slightly less bad is better. There are only two options, one was kinda bad and one was BATSHIT INSANE.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Evidence, (such as 1000 lost seats and a lost general election to a sherbert horror) says that most people will not vote for either. It's staring right at you. Corbyn's election victories (yes even that general election loss was more or less a victory) says that if you give people something positive to vote for then they will. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
trump didnt even win because of 3rd party voters. he just appealed more to dark souls 2 players
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The change doesn't happen overnight and refusing to support poo poo candidates is not remotely mutually exclusive with attempting to support good ones, while supporting poo poo ones is counterproductive to supporting good ones because it only encourages the party to do whatever it can to get the poo poo ones in because they get votes. You do understand that "good" and "bad" are relative, not absolute? The value judgement of each exists in the context of all the possible alternatives. The poo poo ones may be poo poo, but they're not that poo poo when compared to the others. Your vote has real consequences for the lives of thousands of people. If a Dem is lovely, but isn't actively gutting the social assistance system, they're infinitely preferable to a Rep who will actively work to destroy that system. As you've already mentioned, in a lovely two-party system, it's really difficult to send a moral message to your own party. If you vote, you may be re-enforcing the wrong message ("I'm cool with this corporatist hack"). If you don't vote, you may also be re-enforcing the wrong message ("we didn't win because we weren't right-wing enough, etc"). The only way to resolve this dilemma is through consequentialist ethics. Not voting means selecting the worst choice. Doing this has the consequence of adversely affecting the lives of many people and perhaps sending the wrong message to your own party. The alternative is voting, sending the wrong message to your own party but at the very least not undermining the lives of many (and finding other ways, like the primaries, to select better candidates). The last one is the more preferable option of the two.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
GulagDolls posted:trump didnt even win because of 3rd party voters. he just appealed more to dark souls 2 players
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:You do understand that "good" and "bad" are relative, not absolute? The value judgement of each exists in the context of all the possible alternatives. The poo poo ones may be poo poo, but they're not that poo poo when compared to the others. Your vote has real consequences for the lives of thousands of people. If a Dem is lovely, but isn't actively gutting the social assistance system, they're infinitely preferable to a Rep who will actively work to destroy that system. Again, evidence suggests that in pitting a bad candidate against another bad candidate that most people will vote for neither of them. The lesser of two evil strategy is a colossal failure and the fact that the Democrats are going to try it again in the 2018 elections is loving mind-boggling. I just noticed this isn't even the Democrats are a Waste thread we're posting in. Should probably take all this type of discussion there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Anyway about those YouTube intellectuals who can't stop talking about video games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNla4411O78
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Person Correctly Identifies Problem With Patriarchal Norms, Blames Women Anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
If this could somehow be made into the thread title, that would be swell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Again, evidence suggests that in pitting a bad candidate against another bad candidate that most people will vote for neither of them. I'm not arguing in favor of the lesser-evil strategy from the perspective of the political party (it will clearly fail and I wish Dems would stop being so poo poo). I'm arguing for the moral imperative of a progressive voter in the US fptp system of government to vote the lesser of two evils, all things being equal. But yeah, I'll go check out that thread if this is off topic here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Ooh a two-fer! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBoZ6iuiXsY EDIT: Can't wake mom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSgJi3_RAJg
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Did anybody link Shaun's new vid? I'm the frowny-faced European Union.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 09:42
|
|
