"Lesser of two evils" voting

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Nah, as I said "the republicans say a lot of true stuff and I agree with them a lot" is always a huge element of whiney faux leftist internet culture.

Huh? Are we supposed to think this is a real argument? The exchange goes:
A: Democrats are bad for reasons
B: You're just parroting Republican talking points
A: I mean maybe, but only because they are correct about these specific reasons
B: See! I knew all along you would argue the things you are saying are, in fact, true. You arguing the things you say are true just proves me more right.

How is that an objection?

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Feb 15, 2018

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 17:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 17:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

It's the way the targets are never different and it's so clear the republican narrative takes the lead. If it was so called "true leftists" that were attacking one group of democrats and then republicans attacking another and the democrats the republicans hated were the ones the "leftists" loved or something that would be one thing, but it's the super obvious way that if a republican hates a democrat that by the end of the week the official newsletter has gone out that they are also target #1 centerist.

Who cares!? Like let's say you are 100% correct and the so called "true leftists" are literally just taking pages out of Republican talking points. If those talking points are true, who cares where they came from? "Well, yeah you're completely correct that Democrats are bad, but you learned that fact from Fox News" isn't any sort of rebuttal.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 18:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I don't dislike the radical left, I dislike people that hate democrats more than they hate republicans or try to put on any sort of show of not being able to distinguish the two. Anyone who tries to pull any "I'm so far left I won't vote or help either of them" is not nearly as leftist as they tell themselves. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you supporting the republican party. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you retweeting the latest republican talking point about hillary clinton.

What is going to create a better leftist party? Unequivocal support of the existing not at all leftist party?

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 18:59

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Ytlaya posted:

there's no evidence not voting has any positive impact. If I felt like not voting had the potential to move the party to the left, that's the choice I would make instead.

I agree not voting is a bad strategy, but I feel like there's pretty good reason to believe that Nader's performance impacted the party's overall strategy for the better.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2018 20:22

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

So like, why do you support 15 then? if it's not livable? Why is yout centrism support of a less than livable wage totally good now?

As it turns out, it is possible to think some compromises are acceptable, and other, worse compromises are unacceptable. I understand this isn't compatible with your strategy of "always vote Democratic so long as they promise to murder 1 less baby than the Republicans", but people with principles will draw lines over certain policies and reject proposals that go over those lines.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2018 18:15

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Oh look at this centrist, thinking that "people in new york shouldn't have a livable wage" is a good compromise. You make me sick.

Yo, I'm the person arguing people should vote for the best candidate, voting in a republic always involves a compromise since human representatives aren't perfect. Your argument only works against actual congressmembers. (edit: Or I guess if we're talking about ballot initiatives, but I have other separate arguments about those)

VitalSigns posted:

A living wage for a 2 parent 2 child household is $14.61 in West Virginia. A federal minimum of $15/hr would guarantee that even the poorest places in the country in the evilest states will still be able to support a family. If Idaho's living wage is $15.70 then the state government can and ought to set a higher wage and you should be pushing for that if you live there rather than disingenuously using it to argue down everyone else's wages to subsurvival levels.

This doesn't make sense, if we think state legislatures are a thing that works we would just rely on every state legislature to set their minimum wage, and there would be no reason to care about the federal minimum wage at all. (Also I think setting government policy around two parent two child household has its own problems, but that's a tangent to a tangent)

# ¿ Feb 20, 2018 18:24

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Why specifically 15? What makes that compromise the one true leftist position that can't just be demolished by someone saying 16 is the one true position and everyone that would vote for a democrat that supported 15 is a nazi baby killer?

Because we live in a republic, and I can find candidates on my ballot supporting 15 and not 16. If you've candidates on your ballot supporting 16, you should vote for them.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2018 18:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

It's weird to me, because I can think of very good reasons to engage in lesser of two evils strategies. Like you think the candidate definitely isn't perfect, and isn't even the best candidate on the ballot, but you think the alternative is sufficiently bad that you're accepting entrenching the status quo as a worthwhile compromise. That's a great strategy, there's nothing wrong with it. What I don't understand is people who employ that strategy arguing against other strategies. One of two things is possible 1) You need my vote, in which case, you're not going to shift my strategy, because I know you need my vote, and what you need to do is convince politicians to adopt views that will get me to vote for them or 2) You don't need my vote, so why are you wasting your breath trying to run up the score?

# ¿ Feb 27, 2018 19:31

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Spanish Matlock posted:

How do people feel about the accuracy of polling data? I feel like that has a lot to do with how you approach the situation. If you assume that polling data is accurate, you would almost have to vote for one of the two candidates who are projected to take the majority of votes

Why? Suppose you live in Idaho where the Republican candidate is projecting to win 99.whatever% of the time, do you then almost have to vote Republican? How is voting Democrat or third party different in Idaho where your vote is guaranteed to not matter in any scenario?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2018 16:58

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Spanish Matlock posted:

I mean it would depend on the numbers, but if it were actually 99% Republican .5% Democrat .5% Jill Stein then you'd be justified in doing either.

No. How does that work? Earlier you suggested there was some sort of requirement to vote for one of the two parties that have a majority of votes. That implies if it's 99% Republican, you need to vote for Republican. Show your work.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2018 18:18

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Spanish Matlock posted:

There is no second party sharing the majority of votes. The number two is the one that's one bigger than one.

Ok again, why? Why only consider the top two parties instead of the top 10? We've established it's not "because they can win" because you're fine voting for people who can't possibly win in Republican states.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2018 18:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Spanish Matlock posted:

Because in a first past the post system there is only a winner and a runner up.

I mean this is just objectively incorrect. In a first past the post system there is one winner, and a bunch of other people who ran and didn't win. Why are you privileging one of the people who didn't win over the other people who didn't win, when they all achieved the same result (not winning)?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2018 18:31

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Spanish Matlock posted:

Okay, so once you've replaced them, what keeps the new party from being exactly as bad.

In addition to what others have said, once we've demonstrated an ability to replace horrible people, not being horrible should just be a self-defense strategy for politicians. Maybe you're right the system is so broken we'll never achieve replacement, but in that scenario it seems talking about voting strategies is totally pointless.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2018 16:12

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Spanish Matlock posted:

Pretty much? I mean, the thing is that lesser of two evils voting has the slimmest smallest tiniest sliver of benefit to the voter. It's not satisfying, and it feels bad. But it's literally the only option the system allows.

No, if voting strategies don't matter then voting can't matter and the best strategy is stop voting because it's a waste of time. If you think it's important to vote, you must think voting strategies matter.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2018 16:48

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Jaxyon posted:

The party isn't naive. You stopped voting for them, they'll work on GOTV likely democrat voters. You're not that.

So I think it's very plausible, and possibly reasonable that the Democratic party has decided they're not interested in having my vote. Like the Republican party definitely isn't interested in my vote, and I wouldn't ever expect them to try to make concessions for it, and I think that's completely ok (insofar as the existence of the Republican party is "ok"). The catch I'm seeing is why would we spend any amount of time discussing the voting strategies of people abandoned by both major parties? They're being given no reason to vote for a party that could ever matter, so they're not going to vote for a party that could ever matter, who cares if they vote third party, or Mickey Mouse, or just stay home?

# ¿ May 1, 2018 01:16

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trasson posted:

Second, how can you be sure your message is received? You are, in effect, advocating "If you're not Good enough you won't win an election because we won't vote for you". How is this any different to a recipient hearing "We won't vote for you at all"? Whether or not declining to vote for someone (but also not the other side) is effectively a vote for the other side can be argued. What can't be argued is that some people will see that as the case, and some of them are the ones who you're trying to send this message to.

This argument always drives me crazy. Maybe you're right. Maybe Democrat politicians are people who interpret votes for third parties as people who are deluded into thinking the third party has any chance of winning and they will always vote third party, even in the presence of a Democrat candidate with policies broadly similar to that third party and they don't interpret votes for third parties as people signaling they support the policies promoted by those third parties. That seems very stupid to me, but there's lot of very stupid people.

The response to that is not "Whelp, I guess I better vote for the Democrat because it is impossible to message opinions to politicians." The response to that is to eject the clearly incompetent politicians and replace them with not-idiots who can read a poll. If a politician can't read the result of an election, the problem is with the politician and not voters.

# ¿ May 1, 2018 21:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 17:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Further even if you do think someone is dumb, education is a societal responsibility, and if someone's education has failed them that in no way implies any blame should be applied to the individual. AND even if you do think we should apply blame, that's still pointless because it will accomplish nothing, and the real solution is to fix education.

twodot fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 3, 2018

# ¿ May 3, 2018 18:37

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