Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[Baruch]

I noticed the "satire". That is why I said what I said.

Sometimes even I have to use postmodern ouija board analysis on Jason's posts ;-)

[Mike Cl]

Yes, Jason is right in that we do not individually vote for the president.  We vote for an electoral college rep. can do that for us.  But in most cases, that rep. can vote anyway he/she wants to.  The electoral sucks.  We do not live in a democracy, but a republic and hence we vote for representatives.  I live in CA, and this year the main reason I voted for HRC is because Trump is such a dick-wad and dangerous person; but actually it was to vote for the 17 propositions on the ballet and the local offices. 

[widdershins]

Man, the Republican media machine really works its magic.  Pretty much all the shit about Hillary is made up, folks.  Her and Bill haven't killed anyone.  That's made up.  She did not vamp out in Benghazi and personally kill six US citizens, nor did she plan the attack, nor did she know it was going to happen and just not care.  She had no part in that at all and all the evidence that we knew something was going down in advance shows a failure in our system, not in one individual personally.  And the email thing?  She did a dumb thing.  That's it, the end.  People keep wanting to make all these other arguments about how it was criminal, but the reality is that she did a dumb thing, the end.  Do you think she WANTED her emails to be hacked?  Wikileaks is doing her a lot of favors right now, that is true...wait a minute, NO IT'S NOT!  Do you think she WANTED to give out state secrets?  Realistically, she didn't communicate many state secrets.  What was it, a little over 100 classified emails out of THIRTY THOUSAND?  Her server was hardly a hub of state secrets.  But assuming she was dealing with classified information all the time, did she WANT that in enemy hands?  Of course not!  Did she INTEND to get hacked?  Did she realize it was a real possibility and just not care?  Of course not!

Now, did she make a little money on the side in shady deals?  Is she a politician?  Ever heard of Citizens United?  They ALL make a little (or a lot) on the side in shady deals!  Does she understand what it's like to be poor?  Hell no!  Is she a liar?  Again, is she a politician?  In America we actually DEMAND that our politicians lie to us, as stupid as that sounds.  When Biden was asked whether he would let his family take a train with a given threat at the time he did a stupid thing and he told the truth.  What a moron!  It blew up in his face and we had something strange happen, our vice president took public transportation.  I don't really know if it counts as a vote of confidence for trains, though.  I've never been on one, but I imagine they aren't normally secured by Secret Service.  As Americans if our politicians tell us the truth instead of what we want to hear they get ROASTED for it.  And that, my friends, is why Trump is so popular.  He doesn't give a fuck about the truth!  It's ALL ABOUT what you want to hear with him!  And, of course, what he wants his rabid followers to hear.

Anyway, as far as I can tell all this shit about Hillary being the devil is pretty much either made up or true of all politicians.  It's hyperbole.  Did she prevent Benghazi?  No, but asking that is like Trump asking why she didn't fix all the world's problems during the 30 years she spent in politics.  Um, probably because she's one cog in a very big machine.  I'm to the point now where when something comes up about her I simply doubt its validity first and I'll look into it later if it becomes big news.

[Sargon The Grape]

Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

[Shiranu]

Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

Name a candidate on either major or minor party who isn't a lesser of x evils and instead good, and I will give them serious consideration.

[PickelledEggs]

Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

That will never be an available option until we vote in a better house and Senate

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Name a candidate on either major or minor party who isn't a lesser of x evils and instead good, and I will give them serious consideration.

Build your own political party ... to avoid party corruption (self contradictory, I know).  Oh when the saints, oh when the saints, oh when the saints go marching' in ...

Party of Holy Atheists ... might not be taken at the trademark office yet ;-)

[Sargon The Grape]

Name a candidate on either major or minor party who isn't a lesser of x evils and instead good, and I will give them serious consideration.

Can't, they've been driven off the stage by strategic voters already.

[Shiranu]

Can't, they've been driven off the stage by strategic voters already.

Such as?

[widdershins]

Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

The way I see this election cycle it's the lesser of 5 evils.  I looked at the other guys.

[PickelledEggs]

That will never be an available option until we vote in a better house and Senate

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I should also clarify that I also am implying that third party candidates are included in the "lesser of the evils" competition. They suck really bad too.

[PickelledEggs]

Speaking of which, let's talk about Jill Stein for a second

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, Jason is right in that we do not individually vote for the president.  We vote for an electoral college rep. can do that for us.  But in most cases, that rep. can vote anyway he/she wants to.  The electoral sucks.  We do not live in a democracy, but a republic and hence we vote for representatives.  I live in CA, and this year the main reason I voted for HRC is because Trump is such a dick-wad and dangerous person; but actually it was to vote for the 17 propositions on the ballet and the local offices. 

Actually, that's not the reason I say our vote is ineffective.  As I've pointed out, I live in California and my vote will not change that California is going for the Turd Sandwich instead of the Giant Douche.  It's an inevitable outcome.  There's no point in giving my vote to either the Turd Sandwich or the Giant Douche because California is going for the Turd Sandwich.  My vote will not have "negligible effect" it will have "no effect."

And suppose I lived in Texas.  My vote wouldn't change the outcome there either.  No matter how I vote, the Giant Douche will win Texas.  My vote would not have "negligible effect" it would have "no effect".

That's reality.  In most states your vote has absolutely no effect on the outcome.

There are ways in which your vote can count, but they all rely on abandoning the two party vote.  Even then you won't change the outcome, but you can change the ancillary effects.  Third parties struggle to maintain ballot access.  They have to garner a certain percentage of the vote to keep ballot access.  That percentage isn't terribly high, but in a first-past-the-post system like we have, it is still a difficult hurdle.  In those cases every vote does count.

Also major parties do look at those who are willing to look beyond the facade.  They then make a platform plank to placate those voters (as if they actually paid attention to their platform) so they can reabsorb those voters, because the major parties have the belief that the votes belong to the major parties as some sort of divine inheritance.  These ethicists should have just summed up their article with "because God said so" when trying to convince people that they must grow up and choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.

If a third party steals votes often enough and consistently enough, it actually steers the major party ever so slightly to reclaim the stolen votes.  Voting for Hillary changes nothing.  Voting for Stein has the potential to eventually steer the Democratic Party to one more acceptable to Stein voters.  The same goes for voting for Darrell Castle and the Republican Party.  Of course it doesn't really apply to the Libertarian Party as our platform is antithetical to both and would require major changes in either for it to happen.  Besides, the Libertarian Party already does a great job of shooting itself in the foot on a regular basis.

But wait, there's more.  Who remembers the 2008 election?  I remember there was a problem in Texas.  Both major parties forgot to file on time to be on the ballot, leaving only the worst candidate ever put forward on the LP ticket as the only candidate on the ticket.  The state went ahead to print the ballot with both McCain and Obama on it, and Bob Barr actually did the right thing and sued under "force Texas to obey Texas law."  As it turns out, Obama won so Texas electoral votes didn't change the outcome, but if Barr had won the suit it would have ensured that Obama wins the general election while Barr wins Texas.

Why didn't the Democrats support Barr's suit?  Because they know to keep the game with just two players, even if it hurts them in the short run.  A Barr victory in Texas would have helped in the short run and hurt in the long run.

Besides, the Texas Secretary of State quickly "found" their ballot applications, dated appropriately before the deadline, with the ink still wet.  Those "on time" applications were the reason why Texas won the lawsuit against Bob Barr.  As an aside, just curious, do you think the Texas Secretary of State would have been as obliging had McCain and Obama been on time but Barr been late?

So no, when it comes to deciding anything in the short term, your vote really honestly has no effect.  In the long term, it has an effect if you vote third party.  The only exception to this is if you live in a swing state, and it really is a true swing state instead of "leading by a mere 2%" swing state.  Very few states are like that.  Most of the so called swing states are one where a major party candidate has a weak lead instead of a strong lead.  Very few are actual toss-ups.

Now if you live in one of those states, then it might possibly matter if you choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.  But not in California, not in Texas, not in most states.  Far better to try to steer the major parties in the long run by withholding their your vote from them.

But what if everyone did this at once?  Well, then we'd actually get a good candidate for a change.

[Baruch]

I have to agree.  Voting for either major party, is a vote for the status quo .. not for change.  That is just because of where they are at politically ... Right and Far Right.  Thanks Jason, you gave me another good reason to vote they way I will tomorrow.  And no, I don't think Bernie or his supporters will make a fart's worth of difference in the Hillary Hurricane, if she is elected.  They are gullible, just like most minority voters.

[Shiranu]

Actually, that's not the reason I say our vote is ineffective.  As I've pointed out, I live in California and my vote will not change that California is going for the Turd Sandwich instead of the Giant Douche.  It's an inevitable outcome.  There's no point in giving my vote to either the Turd Sandwich or the Giant Douche because California is going for the Turd Sandwich.  My vote will not have "negligible effect" it will have "no effect."

And suppose I lived in Texas.  My vote wouldn't change the outcome there either.  No matter how I vote, the Giant Douche will win Texas.  My vote would not have "negligible effect" it would have "no effect".

That's reality.  In most states your vote has absolutely no effect on the outcome.

There are ways in which your vote can count, but they all rely on abandoning the two party vote.  Even then you won't change the outcome, but you can change the ancillary effects.  Third parties struggle to maintain ballot access.  They have to garner a certain percentage of the vote to keep ballot access.  That percentage isn't terribly high, but in a first-past-the-post system like we have, it is still a difficult hurdle.  In those cases every vote does count.

Also major parties do look at those who are willing to look beyond the facade.  They then make a platform plank to placate those voters (as if they actually paid attention to their platform) so they can reabsorb those voters, because the major parties have the belief that the votes belong to the major parties as some sort of divine inheritance.  These ethicists should have just summed up their article with "because God said so" when trying to convince people that they must grow up and choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.

If a third party steals votes often enough and consistently enough, it actually steers the major party ever so slightly to reclaim the stolen votes.  Voting for Hillary changes nothing.  Voting for Stein has the potential to eventually steer the Democratic Party to one more acceptable to Stein voters.  The same goes for voting for Darrell Castle and the Republican Party.  Of course it doesn't really apply to the Libertarian Party as our platform is antithetical to both and would require major changes in either for it to happen.  Besides, the Libertarian Party already does a great job of shooting itself in the foot on a regular basis.

But wait, there's more.  Who remembers the 2008 election?  I remember there was a problem in Texas.  Both major parties forgot to file on time to be on the ballot, leaving only the worst candidate ever put forward on the LP ticket as the only candidate on the ticket.  The state went ahead to print the ballot with both McCain and Obama on it, and Bob Barr actually did the right thing and sued under "force Texas to obey Texas law."  As it turns out, Obama won so Texas electoral votes didn't change the outcome, but if Barr had won the suit it would have ensured that Obama wins the general election while Barr wins Texas.

Why didn't the Democrats support Barr's suit?  Because they know to keep the game with just two players, even if it hurts them in the short run.  A Barr victory in Texas would have helped in the short run and hurt in the long run.

Besides, the Texas Secretary of State quickly "found" their ballot applications, dated appropriately before the deadline, with the ink still wet.  Those "on time" applications were the reason why Texas won the lawsuit against Bob Barr.  As an aside, just curious, do you think the Texas Secretary of State would have been as obliging had McCain and Obama been on time but Barr been late?

So no, when it comes to deciding anything in the short term, your vote really honestly has no effect.  In the long term, it has an effect if you vote third party.  The only exception to this is if you live in a swing state, and it really is a true swing state instead of "leading by a mere 2%" swing state.  Very few states are like that.  Most of the so called swing states are one where a major party candidate has a weak lead instead of a strong lead.  Very few are actual toss-ups.

Now if you live in one of those states, then it might possibly matter if you choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.  But not in California, not in Texas, not in most states.  Far better to try to steer the major parties in the long run by withholding their your vote from them.

But what if everyone did this at once?  Well, then we'd actually get a good candidate for a change.

And again, that is all hunky dory if our actions didn't have reactions, but they do. The third party vote put it's own arrogance ahead of it's brain and got Bush elected. The third party shifted the Republican party further to the right from within, and thus the Democrats as well. So no, you are entirely right... the third party is great at making changes; Bush was a huge change and the tea party were a radical shift as well. But that is not the change I am really looking for.

You try to pour water on the fire, but all you have done is add gasoline. Why should the average voter have any trust in what you have to say when you have to really dig deep to find a third party candidate who has the slightest clue about... anything... and their tract record is one of harm rather than good? It's all just, "My shit doesn't stink! Why don't you eat MY turd sandwich instead... it is relished with self-righteousness! Mmm mmm!" and no real depth.'

Dare I say it and sound the conservative, but a stable government is simply a more ethical and logical choice than an unstable one third parties bring.