Question about voting.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It's HRC. She wasn't my first choice, but beats the trumpster fire without even trying. 3rd party votes are at best pipe dreams. I hear 3rd party talk all the time without any thought to what people want out of a 3rd party so long as it isn't R or D, but hell, a 3rd party could be anything...the we want to shit in your Cherios party and because it isn't R or D people believe it's great.  OH! ANYTHING but lima beans! How about dried alligator shit on toast?

[trdsf]

It's HRC. She wasn't my first choice, but beats the trumpster fire without even trying.

Pretty much.  Trump is in every conceivable way unqualified to be president of the United States.

Also, where the fuck did the idea come from that one should only vote for a perfect candidate?  There isn't any such thing, and that includes every single person who's run for any office on any level ever -- and speaking as someone who's actually run for political office, I know.  Every choice for a political candidate means compromises.

The only people who think Hillary needs to be perfect before voting for her are those who aren't going to vote for her in the first place.  Just like the only people who bitch about Obama failing to be a perfect President are those who didn't support him in the first place (read: the GOP).

Or, to put it more bluntly, grow the fuck up.  You don't get your way on 100% of everything.  The whole point of politics is compromise.  If you can't, you don't have any place in the process.

[Hydra009]

I'm voting Hillary.  I like my presidents to be policy wonks, and of the available field, she's hands down the most qualified.

Same.  Out of the two major party candidates, she's far more experienced and qualified.  I disagree with her on a few things, but that's peanuts compared to Trump's platform.  I can trust her to uphold Roe V Wade and the gay marriage ruling and not nominate batshit judges like Scalia to the Supreme Court, for example.  I can't say the same for Trump.

[Shiranu]

So... Trump or someone like Jill Stein?

Not voting for either of them. Sorry OP.

[Shiranu]

Second, my vote has a greater statistical impact when I vote 3rd party.

Isn't that the truth....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html

Thanks to the Greens and Nader, we got a president who actively fucked over the environment and the rest of the world because, "Al Gore wasn't perfect enough"... even though he has gone on to become a far more influential voice for the environmental movement than the entire Green party has been for it's entire existence.

Perhaps 3rd party supporters should be more embracing of the fact that they have zero impact and are irrelevant. It's a bit more flattering than admitting their stubbornness allowed one of the worst presidents in American history to be elected and are saying they want to do that again. But congrats for having your "integrity" intact, I guess...

[Baruch]

I didn't vote at all in 2000 ... and I still hope you all die die die ;-)  Didn't realize most voters wanted to hang Chad ... poor guy!  Yes, my one vote killed 1 million Iraqis ... oh no ... that actually was a result of voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 ... which like dominoes led to the Shrub.

I feel no responsibility for the outcome of any election, no matter if I vote or not.  I don't believe in democracy.  Athenian scum!

[trdsf]

I hesitate to vote 3rd party, though there have been times I wanted to.  But look at the 3rd party vhoices we have had.  George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot.  Nome qualified for Presidency.  In some country's systems, that works.  But not in the US.  We are set up for 2 parties.  Its structural.

I'd say Anderson was qualified.  And technically speaking, so was Wallace with his executive branch background (being a racist disqualified him, of course).

Perot was unqualified in the same way that Hoover and Bush Jr and Trump were and are unqualified -- every time we've had a businessman elected, it's been a disaster economically.

I find it interesting the desperate opposition to Democrats by the business community.  I've actually done the research.  The presidents under whom the markets do best are all Democrats.  They do worst under Republicans.  Period, end of statement.  Go ahead and look up the numbers yourselves, the starting and closing numbers for the Dow, the S&P 500, the Amex, the NASDAQ for every president's first day in office, and last.  There are only three times that the markets closed an Administration lower than they started, and all three times were Republicans, and two of those three were candidates who ran on being "businessmen": Hoover and Dubya (the third was Nixon, who basically ran on being Nixon).

The president under whom the economy did best, by the markets anyway, was Bill Clinton.  Second was Franklin Roosevelt.  Third is Barack Obama.  'Saint Ronnie' appears in fourth place.  So much for Republicans being the party of prosperity.

An economy only works when the money in it moves.  When it stagnates out in a small number of large pools, that's an economy that isn't working, and that almost no one is prospering in, and if only 1% are prospering (hell, if only 10% are prospering), that's statistically close enough to 'almost no one'.

But I digress.  If you feel moved to vote third party, by all means, vote third party.  But I don't think third parties are going to matter until they organize on the local level, and start electing city councilors and county commissioners and state representatives and state senators.  Until that happens, they're just wasting their time at the national level.  Without any depth of field and institutional support, it is just a protest vote.

That said, I have voted third party myself before, when I found both main party options untenable.  We had a local contest several years ago where the Republican ran to the left of the Democrat, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for her because she was an anomaly and wouldn't have any effect on the state party, which was and is very nearly wingnut (we're Ohioans, we don't do extremism well... this is a state where beige is a fashion statement) -- to wit, her election would strengthen those who did not share her progressive views (and I still have no idea why she ran as a Republican when she much more supported the Democratic platform...) so I couldn't in good conscience vote for her and instead voted Green that year, in that race.

But I repeat, until the Greens and the Libertarians and the other minor parties seriously start to organize locally and get themselves into the system at the grassroots level, then voting third party is going to remain a protest vote, not a meaningful vote.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Isn't that the truth....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html

Thanks to the Greens and Nader, we got a president who actively fucked over the environment and the rest of the world because, "Al Gore wasn't perfect enough"... even though he has gone on to become a far more influential voice for the environmental movement than the entire Green party has been for it's entire existence.

Perhaps 3rd party supporters should be more embracing of the fact that they have zero impact and are irrelevant. It's a bit more flattering than admitting their stubbornness allowed one of the worst presidents in American history to be elected and are saying they want to do that again. But congrats for having your "integrity" intact, I guess...

People are still blaming Nader.  How sad.

Of course, Gore couldn't even win his home state, and if he had actually earned the "stolen" votes, things might have turned out differently.

Face it, Gore failed to attract the votes that eventually went to Nader.  It was Gore's fault.

[Atheon]

People are still blaming Nader.  How sad.

Of course, Gore couldn't even win his home state, and if he had actually earned the "stolen" votes, things might have turned out differently.

Gore's home state is Tennessee, one of the deepest red states there is. OF COURSE he didn't win it.

And yes, Nader's run led to 30,000 votes in Florida going to Nader. Had just 10% of those votes gone to Gore instead, Gore would have won the presidency by an incontestable margin. Nader's run led to Bush's victory. It's a mathematical fact.

So yes, Nader gave us George W. Bush, 9/11, the Patriot Act, Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, the Iraq War, and ISIS.

Gee thanks, Ralph.

[Shiranu]

People are still blaming Nader.  How sad.

Of course, Gore couldn't even win his home state, and if he had actually earned the "stolen" votes, things might have turned out differently.

Face it, Gore failed to attract the votes that eventually went to Nader.  It was Gore's fault.

And there lies the problem; by all accounts, Gore did earn those votes as one of the most progressive voices in America, but people put their own pride ahead of their own, and their nations, interest and got everyone fucked over because, "he wasn't perfect enough!".

I don't blame Nader or the Green party per se, I blame people who think they are actually voting their principle. They, you, aren't. You are intentionally voting in a manner that is going to make someone who represents you even less win. That isn't principled, that is lunacy. Acting like politics that affect the world is a game and that your spoiled self is more important is frankly one of the most selfish acts that can be committed in the modern world.

The same cloth as the Rep who only voted because they weren't a Dem, and vice versa. At least they don't act so hipster and pretentious about it, though.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Pretty much.  Trump is in every conceivable way unqualified to be president of the United States.

Also, where the fuck did the idea come from that one should only vote for a perfect candidate?  There isn't any such thing, and that includes every single person who's run for any office on any level ever -- and speaking as someone who's actually run for political office, I know.  Every choice for a political candidate means compromises.

The only people who think Hillary needs to be perfect before voting for her are those who aren't going to vote for her in the first place.  Just like the only people who bitch about Obama failing to be a perfect President are those who didn't support him in the first place (read: the GOP).

Or, to put it more bluntly, grow the fuck up.  You don't get your way on 100% of everything.  The whole point of politics is compromise.  If you can't, you don't have any place in the process.

Exactly.. There is no such thing as a perfect politician,  party or person and anyone who thinks there is or ever will be are delusional.

[Baruch]

I love these folks .... who in the post-election omnipotence, want to turn the clock back and re-run the election shouting ... See, See! ... don't vote that way or the baby seal gets it!  So who should we kill first ... the lawyers or the damn voters ... who don't vote the way the Brights have decreed?

To wit:  To the Fema camps with all the Democrats ... they are the anti-Christ ;-)  Why?  Because I am a Bright, I am the master of what is a meaningful vote of not!  That Trumps your civil right to make your own stupid choice ... you are only free to make the choice I would make, if I really was omnipotent.

[Baruch]

Exactly.. There is no such thing as a perfect politician,  party or person and anyone who thinks there is or ever will be are delusional.

In a nation of narcissistic maniacs ... they only perfect person they see, is looking back at them in the mirror.  Trump wins, because we are all Trumps.

We aren't all Hillaries ... even I look better in a pant-suit than she does ;-))

[Hydra009]

But I repeat, until the Greens and the Libertarians and the other minor parties seriously start to organize locally and get themselves into the system at the grassroots level, then voting third party is going to remain a protest vote, not a meaningful vote.

And since election results are correlated with campaign funding, they also need to get financial backers.  And since those funds are already largely tied to the two parties, it's difficult bordering on impossible to get a third party off the ground and seriously compete with the two parties for major positions.

[Mike Cl]

The problem for third parties is that we really do not have a national election.  We have 51 elections in that each state votes for the elector delegates who then split up the allotted electoral votes for that state.  Then those votes are added up.  So, a third party would have to have a solid footing in each of those states (and territories); that takes quite a bit of money and influence, especially since it has to be done over 50 times.