Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[SGOS]

My point was that Stein wasn't the cause of the results of the election.   

I didn't actually conclude that.  I was just expanding on it.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And once again, you think it is all about you. A common trend amongst 3rd partiers.

To quote a gay friend of mine...


The third party voters of Mich., of Penn, of several others that were close... they voted their ego over combating racism. Over combating sexism. Over combating homophobia. Over combating xenophobia. Over combating "Islamaphobia" (and I use that for lack of a better word since that is closest to what these idiots believe).

Congrats. I hope your own pride was more important than the negative ramification of your actions. But to the third party, and particularly libertarians, only one thing really matters... me, me, me... I, I, I.

I looked at that.  Johnson's total was larger than the margin.

So, what is it about Hillary that was theoretically supposed to appeal to Libertarians?  "Not Trump" is not enough.  Johnson was "Not Trump Not Hillary."

Anyway, I voted 3rd party in California.  Since I voted 3rd party in California, I'm responsible for Florida, Ohio, and Iowa swinging Trump.

Remember, surrender is grown up but wishing to actually do good is childish.

[widdershins]

The third party voters of Mich., of Penn, of several others that were close... they voted their ego over combating racism. Over combating sexism. Over combating homophobia. Over combating xenophobia. Over combating "Islamaphobia" (and I use that for lack of a better word since that is closest to what these idiots believe).

Congrats. I hope your own pride was more important than the negative ramification of your actions. But to the third party, and particularly libertarians, only one thing really matters... me, me, me... I, I, I.

That of course assumes that everyone who voted for a third party would have voted instead for Hillary if the third party were not an option.  It's easy to look at that and say that Hillary would only need to pick up a third of those votes to have won, but the math isn't quite that simple.  She would have had to pick up about a third of them AND THEN half of what was left.  So out of 212,461 votes Hillary would have had to pic up 68,237 (to win by 1) PLUS 72,112 of what was left for a total of 140,349 votes to win by a single vote.  That's more than 2/3 of the votes cast for third parties she would have had to win.  To put that into context she would have had to pick up either almost ALL of Johnson's votes or ALL of Castle's votes, ALL of Stein's votes and then nearly HALF of Johnson's votes.

While it is tempting to look at the numbers and think, "If Hillary had all those votes she would have won!", reality isn't really that simplistic.  Is it realistic to say someone who couldn't get to 50% of the vote could have picked up just over 66% of the third party vote?  Maybe.  I don't know what was going through the minds of the third party voters, but I am sure many of them would have voted from Trump instead of Hillary and I'm sure that he would have needed to pick up fewer than 1/3 of those votes to STILL have won.

And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

People are not whatever negative thing you happen to decide to throw out for voting third party.  They are not lazy.  They are not prideful.  They are not arrogant.  They are not selfish.  They are not immoral.  They are exercising their right to vote for the candidate who best matches their ideals.  Every time these negative generalizations are thrown around the person making them is insinuating that these people did something wrong.  Now, in this case, I don't think they were the brightest people, to be sure.  All of the other candidates, by my estimation, were crap.  But they didn't do anything wrong.  They do not need or deserve to be chastised.  They did not cause the results of the election to be what they are.  What happened?  You backed the weaker candidate.  Yet you talk as if your candidate was strong enough to have taken 2/3 of the third party votes when he/she wasn't even strong enough to win?  I think that's a bit of an unrealistic expectation.

[SGOS]

And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

I doubt there was intent to cheat the system.  More like they lost touch with constituents.  They have a system is place that worked in the past, but many Democrats are no longer enthusiastic about the message.  It won't necessarily require them to run 3rd party candidates.  Fresh Democrats with progressive ideas that resonate with modern times would work as well.  There's a lot of inertia in the party, and change in America is occurring at a much faster rate.  It's easy to get stuck in an outmoded plan.  That pitfall has toppled business, military endeavors, and it will affect politics.

[Shiranu]

That of course assumes that everyone who voted for a third party would have voted instead for Hillary if the third party were not an option.  It's easy to look at that and say that Hillary would only need to pick up a third of those votes to have won, but the math isn't quite that simple.  She would have had to pick up about a third of them AND THEN half of what was left.  So out of 212,461 votes Hillary would have had to pic up 68,237 (to win by 1) PLUS 72,112 of what was left for a total of 140,349 votes to win by a single vote.  That's more than 2/3 of the votes cast for third parties she would have had to win.  To put that into context she would have had to pick up either almost ALL of Johnson's votes or ALL of Castle's votes, ALL of Stein's votes and then nearly HALF of Johnson's votes.

While it is tempting to look at the numbers and think, "If Hillary had all those votes she would have won!", reality isn't really that simplistic.  Is it realistic to say someone who couldn't get to 50% of the vote could have picked up just over 66% of the third party vote?  Maybe.  I don't know what was going through the minds of the third party voters, but I am sure many of them would have voted from Trump instead of Hillary and I'm sure that he would have needed to pick up fewer than 1/3 of those votes to STILL have won.

And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

People are not whatever negative thing you happen to decide to throw out for voting third party.  They are not lazy.  They are not prideful.  They are not arrogant.  They are not selfish.  They are not immoral.  They are exercising their right to vote for the candidate who best matches their ideals.  Every time these negative generalizations are thrown around the person making them is insinuating that these people did something wrong.  Now, in this case, I don't think they were the brightest people, to be sure.  All of the other candidates, by my estimation, were crap.  But they didn't do anything wrong.  They do not need or deserve to be chastised.  They did not cause the results of the election to be what they are.  What happened?  You backed the weaker candidate.  Yet you talk as if your candidate was strong enough to have taken 2/3 of the third party votes when he/she wasn't even strong enough to win?  I think that's a bit of an unrealistic expectation.

If you vote against lgbt rights, women's rights, Muslims, immigrants, disabled professionals, veterans, et. Al. Trump attacked by not standing up to a legitimate threat because of your pride, then I'm sorry but calling you prideful and selfish  is literally magnitudes below the much more brass and much more accurate things you deserve to be called.

[Baruch]

Mostly, the third party is a scapegoat.  For of the folly of the Trump campaign, he resonated and connected very well with a majority of voters, and a small majority of the country is happier today than it was yesterday because of it.  Hillary did not resonate very well with her constituents.  She just didn't.  She lacked what it took. 

It's unfair to blame Jill Stein for Clinton's failure to connect or Trump's ability to accumulate enthusiastic support.  I know some people are now married to a perception that they have been betrayed by a group they think rightfully belong in their camp, and I can understand the dynamic behind their anger, but that is not the reason for the failure to seat their candidate.  Hillary in the end, was the weaker candidate.

The D's in 2000 hated Nader like Germans in 1920 hated Jews because they incorrectly felt the German Jews were unpatriotic.  The D's are narcissists who think they are entitled to all the Independent voter's votes.

[Baruch]

If you vote against lgbt rights, women's rights, Muslims, immigrants, disabled professionals, veterans, et. Al. Trump attacked by not standing up to a legitimate threat because of your pride, then I'm sorry but calling you prideful and selfish  is literally magnitudes below the much more brass and much more accurate things you deserve to be called.

Even your beard is revolutionary ... Karl ;-)  The problem with revolutionaries, is that most of the time isn't the French or Russian revolution time.  It is status quo time ... or in this case, a little off kilter of status quo ... but not Red flag off kilter.

[Cavebear]

And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

It IS worth noting that Trump IS essentially the 1st 3rd party candidate to ever win the Presidency. 

[Baruch]

It IS worth noting that Trump IS essentially the 1st 3rd party candidate to ever win the Presidency.

Only because the GOP was on a ventilator with Old Man Bush ... all he had to do was sneak into the hospital room and disconnect it.  If he had tried to take over the DNC ... he would have been Vince Fostered ... even dead, Hillary is dangerous, like a shark.

[widdershins]

If you vote against lgbt rights, women's rights, Muslims, immigrants, disabled professionals, veterans, et. Al. Trump attacked by not standing up to a legitimate threat because of your pride, then I'm sorry but calling you prideful and selfish  is literally magnitudes below the much more brass and much more accurate things you deserve to be called.

There is no box to check on the ballot to vote "against" something or someone.  That is just not how the system works.  It's fun to pretend it is when your candidate lost and you're looking for someone to blame, but it's an angry idea, not a reality.  You know full well that you cannot group together all the people who didn't vote for Hillary, or even all the people who voted for a third party and say "This one thing is true of all of them".  This just isn't being intellectually honest.

[Baruch]

Adding ...

I think many people not just SJWs ... would want a ranked list of issues ... ACA for example ... and see which ones get a plurality.  This is like state-wide issue voting.  Then you have a set of candidates, all of whom swear to implement the issue priorities of the voters ... they are just the tool, not the policy wonks.  This would be a great system.  Since in practice ... the different candidates are all equal, except for irrational reasons ... we could just as well do what the Athenians did, and choose an implementor of the people's will, by random lot.

[Hurt]

I wonder how many women voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primary only because she was a woman? How many didn't care what harm she would do just to be selfish and "see a woman president in my lifetime"?

How many still wanted to make history back to back? If you vote for a woman just because she is a woman it is just as bad as not voting for one for the same reason.

[Baruch]

Didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 92 because he was White or Barak Obama in 2008 because he was Black.  In both cases for the same two reasons:

1. They are relative outsiders to DC

2. They had non-elite upbringings

I was hoping in both regards, that they would bring something new to the equation ... but they were both quickly coopted ... unless they were coopted from before the election.

[Baruch]

I wonder how many women voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primary only because she was a woman? How many didn't care what harm she would do just to be selfish and "see a woman president in my lifetime"?

How many still wanted to make history back to back? If you vote for a woman just because she is a woman it is just as bad as not voting for one for the same reason.

Slice and dice binary identity politics however you want ... the problem lies in the approach, not in the data.  The approach presupposes neoliberal orthodoxy.

[drunkenshoe]

I wonder how many women voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primary only because she was a woman? How many didn't care what harm she would do just to be selfish and "see a woman president in my lifetime"?

How many still wanted to make history back to back? If you vote for a woman just because she is a woman it is just as bad as not voting for one for the same reason.

How many men voted for her over Bernie? It's now women's faullt, is that it?