Are you going to vote? How do you decide?

[ktgrok]

I don't have time to read everything written here and maybe this has been stated, but this is the year...it is the year where if everyone who wanted to vote 3rd party actually voted 3rd party then a 3rd party would probably win.  That being said, everyone who wants to vote third party will hold back, thinking their vote is a waste so it won't work.  ugh

 

No, because there is more than one 3rd party, so the vote would be split between them. Left leaning people like me would never vote for the one people often push as the most likely third party candidate, and the right leaning folks aren't voting for anything with "Green" in the label. Same polarity, but split 4 ways instead of 2. 

 

Actually, with the new candidate, split even further. 

[Barb_]

No, because there is more than one 3rd party, so the vote would be split between them. Left leaning people like me would never vote for the one people often push as the most likely third party candidate, and the right leaning folks aren't voting for anything with "Green" in the label. Same polarity, but split 4 ways instead of 2. 

 

Actually, with the new candidate, split even further. 

 

And without a clear mandate, the authority of the eventual winner is diluted as well.

 

Barb

[RootAnn]

I know there are more than two 3rd parties. I've never heard of the Veteran's Party and no one has mentioned the Constitution Party* that I know of. There is, of course, also the Socialist Party USA, Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Workers Party, and the Party of Socialism & Liberation. (I had linked to each of them, but decided you can Google if you want to see more.)  There are several more. That's a lot of split votes.

 

*Only one I listed (besides Libertarian & Green) that is on more than 20 state ballots.

[IfIOnly]

And without a clear mandate, the authority of the eventual winner is diluted as well.

 

Barb

Perhaps, the president feeling that will send a message that a certain amount of integrity matters to future candidates though. Edited August 8, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[Retired]

well I'm a conservative and voted in the primary for someone other than the winner.  I think that the winner of both parties are liars and crooks.  The one party gal has  been given payoffs for actions through her families foundation.  

 

The the other guy is just a narcissistic  bat-sh*t- crazy time bomb.   I tend to vote this party but he is just dang crazy dangerous looney toon.   I get why they picked the VP slot cause  he would make a better president then nut hole .  They picked him hoping someone like me will "hold their nose and still vote for the party"  

 

I'm skipping my first election since turning 18.  My state will go with bat-sh*t guy so its a vote that doesn't matter.  We aren't swing and I here lots  blue-dog democrats saying they are  voting for nut-job.  

 

 

seriously it would be a better choice if both VP were top on the ticket.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Cafelattee

[ktgrok]

I would love if it was the two VPs at the top of the ticket. 

 

 

[hornblower]

..

 

 

I think this is way too political for this thread. So many people have been holding back to keep this thread alive and discuss concepts and decision making strategies, not candidates & what we think of them. 

[IfIOnly]

Did anyone else read those posts about deciding between salmon or steak (or whatever it was) and think that it's more like a choice between vomit and poop? I don't want to either. ick and ick.

 

I wonder if enough get enough momentum going to write in the VPs, if that would be a viable option?

Edited August 9, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[hornblower]

Did anyone else read those posts about deciding between salmon or steak (or whatever it was) and think that it's more like a choice between vomit and poop? I don't want to either. ick and ick.

 

I think the point many are making is that you'll be forced to eat one or the other so you may want to pick. They may both be repellent to you but if you had to pick one, which do you pick? 

 

I find it fascinating that people find the choices even remotely equivalent. I can understand that you may not LIKE a candidate or even many of their policies but as I posted earlier in this thread, a choice will be made and you pretty much have a binary system so it's just strategy.

 

 I guess you can think of which do you hate less.  If being tortured and having to pick between vomit and poop, I'd have a preference. I wouldn't like it but I'd have a preference. 

 

 

[Runningmom80]

I'm excited to vote for the candidate I'm voting for, but I have considered what I would do if faced with a choice of two candidates I did not like. I'd go with the one who matched closest with my beliefs, unless that person had some serious character flaws, in which case if vote for the one I thought was a better person, even if that person was not a member of my party.

 

Whew, that wasn't political, was it? That was hard!

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I don't have time to read everything written here and maybe this has been stated, but this is the year...it is the year where if everyone who wanted to vote 3rd party actually voted 3rd party then a 3rd party would probably win. That being said, everyone who wants to vote third party will hold back, thinking their vote is a waste so it won't work. ugh

 

It doesn't work that way. One candidate has to have a minimum number (anyone know what number exactly?) of electoral votes to win. If a single candidate does not, then no winner and we move to the next step. The House of Representatives picks who they want.

[KarenNC]

It doesn't work that way. One candidate has to have a minimum number (anyone know what number exactly?) of electoral votes to win. If a single candidate does not, then no winner and we move to the next step. The House of Representatives picks who they want.

 

270. There are currently 538 electors, so a tie would be 269-269.  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

270. There are currently 538 electors, so a tie would be 269-269. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Thank you, I can't seem to get the number stuck in my head.

[Runningmom80]

270. There are currently 538 electors, so a tie would be 269-269. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Does anyone watch VEEP? "Didn't they ever hear of odd numbers?"

[Mergath]

270. There are currently 538 electors, so a tie would be 269-269. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Or if a third-party candidate siphons off some electoral votes and no one hits 270, it basically functions the same as a tie. Which is what all the third-party proponents don't seem to understand. If we just add in a major third party without overhauling the system, we'll be letting the House pick the president every four years.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Mergath

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Or if a third-party candidate siphons off some electoral votes and no one hits 270, it basically functions the same as a tie. Which is what all the third-party proponents don't seem to understand. If we just add in a major third party without overhauling the system, we'll be letting the House pick the president every four years.

 

Exactly.

[hornblower]

Thank you, I can't seem to get the number stuck in my head.

 

I've memorized the # because I visit Nate Silver's 538 website all the time to get the latest projections :) 

 

[edelweiss]

This thread has been very helpful. I was torn between voting third party and voting for the candidate of the party I lean toward most of the time. I absolutely won't vote for the other candidate. After reading this whole thread, I'm now fairly certain that I will vote third party. Lots of good points made!

[CAMom]

I'm enjoying reading this discussion and dining on lots of good food for thought.

 

I haven't decided what to do. I don't know that I believe that there is a "lesser of two evils" this time around. I'm sure my state's electoral votes have already been gift wrapped and delivered to one of the two candidates already.

 

Whichever way this election goes, we are headed for living in a dystopian novel. ;)

[DawnM]

A member of a certain party showed up at our house today (knocking on doors and doing a survey for the party) and quizzed DH on how he was going to vote.  

[MSNative]

I don't have time to read everything written here and maybe this has been stated, but this is the year...it is the year where if everyone who wanted to vote 3rd party actually voted 3rd party then a 3rd party would probably win. That being said, everyone who wants to vote third party will hold back, thinking their vote is a waste so it won't work. ugh

I will vote but not for either of the major party candidates as both have demonstrated their deep character flaws. I'll be voting third party. My candidate may not win but if enough of us vote third party we can send a message to the major parties. This article in Fiscal Times does a good job of countering the idea that voting third party is a waste.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/06/21/Your-Vote-Third-Party-Candidate-Won-t-Be-Waste-2016

 

"Rather than a form of betting, voting is best understood as a statement of preference. The totals send signals to elected officials and future candidates about public attitudes. And this is why voting for a third party candidate can be useful.

 

If a third party candidate receives a large number of votes, or enough votes to change the outcome of an election, political leaders receive a signal that the ideas advanced by the third candidate are worth considering. Over the long term, policies advocated by the major parties may be affected by third party election results."

[IfIOnly]

I will vote but not for either of the major party candidates as both have demonstrated their deep character flaws. I'll be voting third party. My candidate may not win but if enough of us vote third party we can send a message to the major parties. This article in Fiscal Times does a good job of countering the idea that voting third party is a waste.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/06/21/Your-Vote-Third-Party-Candidate-Won-t-Be-Waste-2016

 

"Rather than a form of betting, voting is best understood as a statement of preference. The totals send signals to elected officials and future candidates about public attitudes. And this is why voting for a third party candidate can be useful.

 

If a third party candidate receives a large number of votes, or enough votes to change the outcome of an election, political leaders receive a signal that the ideas advanced by the third candidate are worth considering. Over the long term, policies advocated by the major parties may be affected by third party election results."

I wasn't sure what I was doing, but thanks to this thread, I've decided 3rd party. Who's the candidate?

[Pam in CT]

I wasn't sure what I was doing, but thanks to this thread, I've decided 3rd party. Who's the candidate?

 

 

:lol: You got new options every day!  You want Green Party, Libertarian, or (as of yesterday!) independent?

[Forget-Me-Not]

I will probably hold my nose and vote for the candidate who I think is (marginally) more qualified for the job.  I too remember the Nader/Gore/Bush scenario.  My husband says he will do a write-in.  Our state will overwhelmingly vote for one candidate though, so our votes don't really matter much either way.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Forget-me-not