"Lesser of two evils" voting

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > "Lesser of two evils" voting

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that the lesser evil is still evil.

Because of the electoral college in the US and the layer of abstraction it provides to presidential voting, I don't see third parties having a big spoiler effect on presidential races, since it's completely meaningless if somebody in a safe blue or red state like California or Wyoming decides to vote of Gloria La Riva or write in Bernie over voting for Hillary.

With that said, there have been cases where a spoiler candidate has led to some really poo poo outcomes, like the gubernatorial race in Maine, where the current republican governor, Paul LePage, was elected with a plurality of 37.6% of the vote.

That is why ranked choice voting is such a good idea. Because it's better able to figure out the will of the electorate by taking into account descending preferences. Somebody who voted for Bernie probably would have preferred Hillary over Trump, and a ranked choice ballot takes that into consideration.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2018 23:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 14:41

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Like if you are a single issue voter and your single issue is "full communism now" neither party is going to be fully what you want, but it's pretty obvious one is far more what you don't want.

Exactly. But in something like a general election between a milquetoast center-right candidate and a straight up actual fascist, the battle is already lost and the only thing to do there is to stem the bleeding, but even a lesser evil is still evil, and that means staying involved politically and holding your politicians feet to the fire.

The nice thing about ranked choice voting is that it would work better for the single issue voter who's single issue is "full communism now," because they could cast their first choice for the Full Communism Now candidate, followed by the liberal candidate, and the more "electable" center-left candidate, and so on down the list until you put the straight up actual fascist at the very bottom in the "oh hell no" spot on the ballot.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2018 00:32

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Baron Porkface posted:

To clarify, is Obamacare evil by this threads exacting standards?

Yes.

It's Nixonian (literally, a proposal very close to the ACA was proposed by Nixon in 1972 in response to Ted Kennedy campaigning on Single Payer), Heritage Foundation garbage that cedes far too much power to private health insurance companies without any real form of oversight, and as we've seen demonstrated, who have absolutely no motivation to play ball, if not actively sabotage it.

Obamacare is a stopgap measure that doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Unfortunately, the constant attacks by the right on unfounded bullshit have forced the democratic party to prop up this right wing bullshit.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2018 07:36

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Baron Porkface posted:

Why are you holing Obamacare Democrats responsible for the actions of Republicans who blocked any more robust healthcare reform and the future actions of republicans who will attempt to destroy Obamacare?

Because at the time they held large majorities in the House and Senate and could have pushed for a stronger bill instead of the watered down compromise we got.

The Limbaugh's, Hannity's and the groups that made up the Tea Party would have been apoplectic regardless if the Democrats had tried for Full Single Payer Now or the watered down Heritage Foundation tripe that we got. So the political cost was the same no matter what, but by going with the weak bill we got, a lot more people are dying or financially struggling than otherwise, and as the ACA repeal has shown, it would have been politically impossible to get rid of once the right regained power.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2018 23:00

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Typo posted:

Ralph Nader dude, not stein

Also, Nader voters would have broken equally for either Bush or Gore.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 00:38

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Majorian posted:

Mmmmm, not as much as you'd like people to believe. His voting record's been pretty Trumpian over the last few years, and he tried to put Sarah cocking Palin a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. The fact that the PUMA crowd would back him shows how incredibly shallow their feminism really was.

All the times that John Sydney McCain III did not vote with Trump:

pre:

7/27/17	Imposing sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea�(98-2)						Yes
6/14/17	Imposing sanctions on Russia�(97-2)									Yes
12/7/17	Extension of government funding for two weeks�(81-14)							No
9/7/17	Raising debt limit/extending government funding/Hurricane Harvey relief�(80-17)				No
7/28/17	Senate "skinny repeal" health care bill�(49-51)								No
7/26/17	Repealing major parts of the Affordable Care Act, with a transition period for replacement�(45-55)	No
5/11/17	Nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be United States trade representative�(82-14)			No
5/10/17	Repeal of a rule requiring energy companies to reduce waste and emissions�(49-51)			No
2/16/17	Nomination of Mick Mulvaney to be director of the Office of Management and Budget�(51-49)		No

Also, I live in California so it really does not matter if I vote third party for president or not. But I still voted dem in the downticket races, and if there's a democrat vs democrat race, I vote for the one further on the left.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 19:35

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Ytlaya posted:

Why is it that the radical left bothers them so much compared with the center? Heck, they sometimes seem to have more kind words for "moderate" Republicans like McCain than they do the radical left. There isn't really a good answer to this question, and I find it interesting to try and suss out the real source of their irritation/anger.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 20:04

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Colin Powell got more votes from democratic electors than Bernie Sanders.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 22:19

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

VitalSigns posted:

To someone who is going to die or whose family member is going to die because they can't afford medicine under the ACA and/or will still die under Hillary's plan the parties may as well be the same. Either one is going to let them die for money.

Now try to control the knee-jerk sociopathic retort "well we don't need their votes anyway " and think: why not try to get their votes by offering not to murder them for money? Recent history has shown that sometimes we really need every last vote!

"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia"

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 00:51

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

The Democratic Party lost shitloads of seats in 1966 after pushing through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The Democratic Party today is so afraid of losing seats and losing power that they don't bother trying to do anything bold that would actually help people when they are in the majority, just watered down half-measures that only barely make things better.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 18:33

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

I can't imagine why a leftist would have reservations about supporting somebody who did far more than anybody else to move the Democratic Party to the right.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 19:02

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

so why should a leftist support a political party that actively sabotages the campaigns of its own leftist members when they run against the favored sons?

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 19:41

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

gay marriage? abortion rights? expanded medicare? All that stuff

The democrats were able to campaign on gay rights because groups like Code Pink held their feet to the fire on it. And in case you forgot, they were late as hell to the party on it. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012. In 2008 his campaign position was that marriage was between a man and a woman. In 2007 Barney Frank stabbed trans people in the back on ENDA and the democratic congress still wouldn't pass it when they had a majority.

So I say this as a lesbian woman who has fought for the right to get married to be afforded basic dignity.

And abortion rights have PP and NARAL to hold their feet to the fire on the issue, or else you'd bet they would backslide on abortion if it could get them votes, and in conservative districts they have.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 19:56

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

For the record I�m registered as a Democrat and I�ve voted in every election since I turned 18.

I voted in the 2016 Primary for Bernie and the 2016 General for Hillary.

But I don�t �identify� as a Democrat because the Democratic Party�s voter coalition is so goddamn broad that it�s ultimately meaningless as a form of personal identity.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 22:31

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Technocratic policies are when you get a bunch of establishment democrats and health insurance CEOs to come together and write this is lieu of an actual policy proposal:

quote:

The mission of United States of Care is to ensure that every single American has access to quality, affordable health care regardless of health status, social need, or income.

A new non-partisan non-profit, we are building and mobilizing a movement to achieve long-lasting solutions that make health care better for everyone. United States of Care will help make it happen by working with Americans from across the country: patients and caregivers, advocates, physicians and other clinicians, policymakers, and business, civic, and religious leaders.

We must change the conversation and create a new narrative that puts health care over politics by redefining the goal in human, not political terms, and supporting a positive, practical, and lasting approach.

United States of Care�s principles are:

Affordable Source of Care: Every American should have an affordable regular source of care for themselves and their families

Protection from Financial Devastation: All Americans should be protected from financial devastation because of illness or injury

Political and Economic Viability: Policies to achieve these aims must be fiscally responsible and win the political support needed to ensure long-term stability.

Our Work

United States of Care will gather and support the best ideas that achieve these aims � instead of being defined by a single specific policy solution or the defense of prior policies.

In 2018, United States of Care will focus on:

Harnessing On-the-Ground Learning: Listening to personal stories and local experts and harnessing public opinion to shape policies that reflect the hopes and concerns of the majority of Americans who don�t want to be without the care they need.

Providing Policy Support: Providing resources and actionable approaches to state and federal policymakers, drawing on a wide range of expertise, facilitating stakeholder engagement, and connecting the dots between the interests of citizens and their elected representatives.

Developing New Ideas: Identifying and developing new solutions that make progress toward the principles of expanding access to affordable care.

Driving Real Change that improves the health and well being of Americans now and on a lasting basis.
In future years we hope to become a leading resource for effective solutions to expand access to care for Americans. We will aim to grow our footprint and work directly with policymakers and experts in states to build support from the public, develop best practice approaches, and shift our national culture to create lasting change.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2018 07:44

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

What about setting up a think tank full of has-been establishment democrats, health insurance CEOs, and republicans who have tried their damndest to block meaningful health care reform to find a solution to health care that can be anything but single-payer?

These are people who have a vested interest in preventing meaningful change, surely we should consider them experts though?

# ¿ Feb 17, 2018 16:29

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Hey remember how the bipartisan immigration bill that T-Kaine offered up made it so that DREAMers couldn�t be too politically outspoken? And yet everybody ignored that poison pill because �decorum� and �bipartisanship.�

# ¿ Feb 18, 2018 03:52

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I mean that is why I said "Nothing else in the US social system or labor laws supports that model very well so generally the gig economy is pretty awful".

Without unions, socialized benefits and a bunch of safety nets a gig economy is worse than what we have. But if you aren't on your own, I'd rather 80% of the company profit goes to the worker than the company. (and then to taxes and dues, to pay for all that stuff).

Because the �gig economy� model is so loving atomized that individuals working have no collective bargaining power.

Plus by 1099ing people, the company offloads all the overhead costs and the risk onto the workers.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2018 03:55

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Where I live, Anaheim, the local democratic politicians on the city council are completely loving owned by Disney.

I make it a policy in local elections to vote the exact opposite way that Disneyland�s local SuperPAC SOAR wants people to vote.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2018 02:51

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Minimum wage should indexed to 3x the average rent for a 1b1br in a business�s location when averaged across 160 working hours in a month.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2018 03:58

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Housing is the single biggest driver of household costs today. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, rent is supposed to be a third of a person's income. A significant number of people pay over half of their income towards housing.

This is a problem.

Trying to throw out a minimum wage number means you're constantly going to be chasing inflating housing costs, and you're going to end up offering a wholly inadequate amount of money for a livable wage.

So let's try a different idea.

Let's index minimum wage to average rent. If a person works 160 hours a month (40 hours a week, 4 weeks per month), then they should be able to meet that HUD requirement of their rent being a third of their income.

That way, everybody wins. Except rent-seekers and businesses that exploit their workers, but they can go gently caress themselves.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2018 18:44

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

This sure reads like "the only good centrism is my centrism" . Where you are willing to have a minimum wage lower than some people's living wage but it's okay because it's a bigger number than some other number, and you'd be happy with an even bigger bigger number but you don't want to rock too many boats by holding out for it.

12 gives some people a living wage and not other people, so does 13 and 14 and 15 and 16 and every number you can name up until the mid 30s where single parents of multiple children live. Any number you name is a compromise where you are helping some people and leaving other people in the cold. 8 is better than 7 and 9 is better than 8 and 10 is better than 9. Just list the numbers in order and you got the rankings, someone can always list a higher number than you can to claim they are more moral.

So go with a formula that tracks based on the single biggest driver of the cost of living.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2018 19:00

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

VitalSigns posted:

It's not a "rule", the minimum wage debate is a proxy for the ideological debate: do workers have a right to a living wage to provide for their families. That's why the question is so contentious.

The people saying 15 are choosing it as a starting point for legislation because there's no rational argument against it besides gently caress poor families: it covers the average household and isn't vulnerable to arguments that it's not necessary in this or that state (again, the argument you would disingenuously start making the instant someone took the bait and said "okay now it's the Fight-For-16 campaign)

The people saying 12 are ideologically opposed to a living wage, that's why they don't want one. It's just not popular to say this, so we have to go through this whole song and dance where they pretend to agree on the ideological question and then disingenuously frame it as disagreeing on details and try to dress up their sociopathy with flimsy arguments like "oh well if a single mom with 5 kids would still suffer on a $15 wage, let's make her suffer 20% more and also force a whole bunch of other families to suffer too". Those people will never incrementally get us to an inflation-adjusted $15/hr wage because they don't want one

As an example, California recently passed a gently caress off uselessly incremental $15 minimum wage.

I say it's gently caress off useless because it's so gradual that by the time it actually reaches $15/hour, inflation will have completely eaten those gains and we're back to square one.

We have a supermajority of democrats in our legislature, and this is the kind of uselessly incremental minimum wage increases we get.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2018 19:32

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

no, you are right, they all stayed home and called bush a centrist because he only wanted a partial border wall not a full border wall and then hillary won and then trump sprung fully formed to reward their faith

they literally did this in 2006 over bush's attempt at immigration reform because it wasn't a draconian mass deportation program.

and that, among other factors, depressed turnout from the right enough to cause a democratic wave in 2006.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2018 23:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 14:41

Instant Sunrise: Apr 12, 2007; The manger babies don't have feelings. You said it yourself.

reignonyourparade posted:

If a conservative that wanted minimum wage of 0 saw their opponent move to cut it by 65%, they'd probably go "gently caress you, you have to PAY people for the privilege of working for them" just to better distinguish themselves from the other side. The primary campaign strategy of conservatives is calling their opponent a leftist radical, if they're almost identical the conservative needs to actively make space between them so that they can call their opponent a leftist radical.

and then the democrat in this scenario would buckle down to zero because of bipartisanship and :decorum:

# ¿ Feb 21, 2018 00:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > "Lesser of two evils" voting