Are you going to vote? How do you decide?

[Pam in CT]

re role of a substantial third party, and what is necessary for one to come into being...

 

The unprecedented-in-my-life fractures within *both* parties throughout this primary season, where *two* quite non-establishment candidates drew enormous support in states across the nation, does to me suggest that there is room in the US for a real third party.

 

Personally I think it'd be healthy and constructive for the long term.  With three established parties, Congress couldn't gridlock in the same way along calcified bipartisan lines-- both the existing parties would be motivated to reach out and compromise with the third party to get legislation passed... so I believe we'd se much less of, Garland Merrick situations.

 

However for a third party to be viable, there has to be on-the-ground infrastructure from the local level up, with Third Party Representatives and Third Party Senators as well as state-and-local level elected officials.  Flying in a single individual at the Presidential level, even if it somehow could be done (and Ross Perot made a credible run), wouldn't get the job done.

 

How much could Jill Stein get through the current Congress even if she were elected?  It can't be just one person just at the Presidential level.

 

 

A significant percentage voting for an alternative sends a clear message to the two main parties to put up better candidates. I've never seen an election cycle with such horrible choices, and I'm not just talking now after the primaries but all along.

I would qualify this slightly, to "A significant percentage voting for an alternative sends a message to the main parties that there's significant discontent in the ranks."  (I expect top organizers in both parties already know this, from the primary circus, but it's yet more reinforcement.)

 

The thing is, though, that in our system, the parties do not "put up" candidates.  Individuals who want to, run.  Individuals declare a party, whether or not they've historically been affiliated with it (Sanders, forex, was not), and they run, whether the establishment parties wish them to or not.  The establishment Dems were no more thrilled with the anti-establishment Sanders than the establishment Reps were with the anti-establishment Trump, yet within the system both candidates were free to declare their affiliation and run.  Run hard.

 

The Republican Party in Louisiana did not "put up" David Duke for Senate.  He just went for it.  And, under the system, he can.

 

 

 

Building a third party -- which I think is theoretically valuable -- takes long haul on-the-ground organizing at every level of government.

We don't get better candidates by "sending a message". We get better candidates by working to make better candidates viable at all levels.

Americans talk out of both ends of our mouths about politics. We say we want consensus builders who can civilly work across the aisle and then we send some of the most partisan and biased (on both sides) people to represent us. We want to see stuff get done but we send opposite parties to cement in gridlock. We say we want a third party but we just want a ready made one to pop up and magically be viable for us to vote for. I understand people who belong to and vote for third parties. I have many a great friend and one fantastic mentor who have pretty much done just that. I don't understand people not willing to roll up their sleeves at least a little for the Libertarians or the Greens (largest third parties) who think that voting for just any third party is some weighty act of protest that will reform the major parties. Reforming the major parties requires both internal and external action. Sustained action. Way beyond just voting and forgetting about it for the next 2-4 years. It's either easier to complain, or that complaining has become a preferred national pastime. This propensity for complaining is not a phenomena unique to any party or spot on the political spectrum. Sometimes it seems like the only thing the left, right and center can all agree on is that it all sucks.

 

Yes, I will vote. My suffragate sisters endured beatings, prison, force feedings in prison, were spat on, had garbage thrown at them, and were vilified by the press, neighbors, and family so that I could have a say in how my country is run. I will not dishonor their sacrifice by not using my right to vote.

Not voting does not send a message. Enough people voting their conscience might send a message. If you really want to send a message, get involved with your local politics.

 

 

 

(In addition to voting as you feel is right in the Presidential.)

[Bluegoat]

Lots of people say, "If I vote 3rd party, then the candidate I most don't want will win, so I'd better not vote 3rd party."

 

But it seems like Republicans and Democrats are saying the same thing. So, if one votes 3rd party, whose votes are being taken away? Are the 3rd party votes being taken from the Republicans or the Democrats?

 

Libertarians are known for being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarians take ideas from both sides and smoosh them together.

 

So who loses the vote when we vote 3rd party Libertarian? By voting 3rd party am I helping the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate?

 

I'm only thinking of the Libertarian party. I haven't heard much of anything about any other 3rd parties, but I hear whispers about the Libertarians from time to time, so I'm assuming that is the 3rd party most votes would go to.

 

(Maybe I should ask this in a new thread. I'm very curious.)

 

It's funny language, because votes don't belong to parties - you aren't taken a vote away from someone who is somehow entitled to it.  I'd go so far as to say it is manipulative language.

 

The Greens are also a fairly widely popular third party.  Libertarians are, in American terms fiscally conservative (which really means liberal) and socially liberal, but that doesn't really translate all that well into appealing to voters from both sides, they typically appeal to some people on the right but to few the left.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

I've never met anyone like this, but these people do exist. They are called neocons. They were historically democrats who out of frustration joined the Republican Party. From what I have read, they are pretty disgusted and are now jumping boat and voting Democrat.

 

That's my understanding, anyway. I kind of get frustrated with all these labels. This and other issues leads me to believe that the Republican Party needs to split. The republicans I grew up around and the republicans I know now definitely don't belong in the same party.

 

If you look at the wider perspective on a worldwide basis, something like this is actually a common strain of conservatism in many countries.  In the US it seems to go by neocoervatism or maybe paleoconservatism, but in other places it might be known more as Red Toryism or traditional conservatism. 

 

In the US it seems to have historically been strongest, as a way of thinking about governance, in Southern politics.

 

But for example here in Canada, conservatism has always tended fairly strongly in that direction and it's only relatively recently that liberal and libertarian economic policies have become an important part of conservative movements and parties.  That is true in a lot of other places as well.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Crimson Wife]

I wonder how exactly the opposite combo would go over in the US? Socially conservative, fiscally liberal with an emphasis on social programs. I can imagine the evangelical right getting strongly behind that, but they've been fed fiscally conservative propaganda mixed with religion for so long that I'm not sure the religious right as a whole could separate the two anymore. No offense to the right (since I'm generally a part of it); just trying to imagine how that sort of a party would go over with the people I know.

 

Many Catholics and Orthodox Jews are this way. They aren't happy with the direction that the traditionally liberal major party has turned wrt s*xual morality issues. Things like wanting not just legalized abortion but taxpayer funding for them.

 

[RootAnn]

Perot ran in 1992.

 

You're right. 1992 was his big year, but he did also run in 1996 - garnering 8% (vs. previous almost 19%) of the overall popular vote.

[Saddlemomma]

I continue to be surprised by the "two evils" camp.

 

I honestly do not see how one could hate both candidates to the *same* degree.

 

(Like I said up thread, I spend a lot of time reading pros and cons for both candidates and then trying to research accusations to the best of my ability.)

 

This is fascinating to me.

 

Hate is a very strong word.  I don't "hate" anyone; I intensely disagree with their platforms and don't believe either is a trustworthy candidate. "Lessor of two evils" is simply a euphemism for the fact that I don't really like either candidate.  

 

I also research both candidates, and I can still say I really don't like either one, but I do agree with one of them on a couple issues; just a couple, and that tips my vote in their direction. That is the person who I'll vote for despite my lack of enthusiasm or affinity for that person, or what they stand for. Hence the reference to holding my nose and lessor of two evils. To not vote is just wrong and, unfortunately, voting 3rd party is just providing a vote for the alternate candidate.

 

I'm a strong proponent of abolishing the party system and voting for individuals, but I'm not sure if that could, in reality, work. Everyone seems to fit into a specific category anyway.  I also strongly believe in term limits for everyone who holds public office.

[Robin M]

Hate is a very strong word. I don't "hate" anyone; I intensely disagree with their platforms and don't believe either is a trustworthy candidate. "Lessor of two evils" is simply a euphemism for the fact that I don't really like either candidate.

 

I also research both candidates, and I can still say I really don't like either one, but I do agree with one of them on a couple issues; just a couple, and that tips my vote in their direction. That is the person who I'll vote for despite my lack of enthusiasm or affinity for that person, or what they stand for. Hence the reference to holding my nose and lessor of two evils. To not vote is just wrong and, unfortunately, voting 3rd party is just providing a vote for the alternate candidate.

 

I'm a strong proponent of abolishing the party system and voting for individuals, but I'm not sure if that could, in reality, work. Everyone seems to fit into a specific category anyway. I also strongly believe in term limits for everyone who holds public office.

 

 

I agree with all you said. I feel like the Republican Party has imploded and has taken off in so many directions that it no longer represents a cohesive group. Which makes your idea of abolishing the party system more viable.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Robin M

[Artichoke]

I will vote, I like and support my party's candidate despite voting differently in the primary, and volunteering for my preferred candidate.

 

BUT can we just fast forward to November? I am so over it already.

 

 

Absolutely agree!   Every election cycle I wish for a legally binding time for candidates to campaign with a firm beginning and ending time.  I'd like to see no campaign signs outside the polling places.  The 100 ft barrier law isn't enough for me.  I'd also like to see all political ads end about a week before the election so folks can make a decision in peace.  

[Robin M]

While I think that is one way to allow oneself to "hold their nose' so to speak, it's a totally different game now that the Senate is refusing to consider Obama's nominee for almost a year before he leaves office? It's quite possible that whomever is elected could face the same stubbornness in the Senate if the Senate's majority is for the opposite party.

Yes, that's sad and maddening that the senators are acting like children when it comes to court nominees. Let's just ignore him until he goes away.

[Frances]

Yes, that's sad and maddening that the senators are acting like children when it comes to court nominees. Let's just ignore him until he goes away.

Especially given history. Many times a Democratic controlled Senate has done their duty and examined the Supreme Court nominee of a Republican president, and usually approved them. But for the first time in modern history the tables are turned and the Republicans point blank refuse to even consider doing their job.

[madteaparty]

I will vote, I like and support my party's candidate despite voting differently in the primary, and volunteering for my preferred candidate.

 

BUT can we just fast forward to November? I am so over it already.

Sing and preach!

[Guest]

Especially given history. Many times a Democratic controlled Senate has done their duty and examined the Supreme Court nominee of a Republican president, and usually approved them. But for the first time in modern history the tables are turned and the Republicans point blank refuse to even consider doing their job.

Ha. You mean like this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no-nominations-to-the-supreme-court-in-an-election-year/2016/02/22/ea8cde5a-d9b1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

 

That is a dishonest or at least shortsighted claim. Not to mention too political for this board to engage further and still respect Susan's rules.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[BusyMom5]

I consider myself an independent.  I have voted 3rd party in other elections, but this time I think the stakes are too high.  One candidate I do not like, and I never thought I would vote for this person.  I will hold my nose and vote for them rather than a 3rd party this time, because the alternate main party candidate winning is enough to scare me into leaving the country, huddling in my basement for 4 years or becoming a hermit living off the land.  

 

I cannot believe that our choices are so poor this time, and I am going to own some of that because I do not vote in the primaries.  I am a swing voter, choosing candidates on both sides, so I would have to pick- do I want to pull a Rep ballot or a Dem ballot-- On the one side, I prefer Candidate A and dislike Candidate B- but overall I may not want to vote for either, depending on who is running for the opposite side.  On that other side, I prefer Candiates X, Y, but strongly dislike Candiate Z.  DOes my dislike for Z make me push to vote for X or Y?  Or do I go ahead and vote for Candidate A.  Right now I am looking at Candidates B and Z- both of which I do NOT like.  Looking back, wondering who I really should have voted for in the primary (that I didn't vote in), and I'm still not sure.  I am beginning to feel like the entire system is rigged and ready for an overhaul.  THe party system- and combining primaries with local primaries and elections, end up making a lot of people like me feel disenfranchised. 

Edited August 6, 2016 by BusyMom5

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Ha. You mean like this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no-nominations-to-the-supreme-court-in-an-election-year/2016/02/22/ea8cde5a-d9b1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

 

That is a dishonest or at least shortsighted claim. Not to mention too political for this board to engage further and still respect Susan's rules.

 

In the interest of being accurate, it should be noted that Biden's objection was regarding a hypothetical vacancy.  In reality, since 1900 there have been 8 votes on nominees during an election year (6 confirmed, and the votes do include those nominated before the election year).

One would think that a hypothetical objection would carry less weight than actual confirmation votes.

[Guest]

He says that now, but his words were plain enough in context and the article notes both sides.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He says that now, but his words were plain enough in context and the article notes both sides.

 

The point I am making is that there was no confirmation blocked in 1992.  In other presidential election years the Senate HAS conformed nominees. To try and claim that a hypothetical objection to a confirmation carries the same weight as the historical precedent of the Senate voting on confirmations is absurd.

Biden's quote would fairly demonstrate he is a hypocrite, but it isn't his nominee that is not being confirmed.

Edited August 6, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Barb_]

I have pretty similar feelings. My state isn't in play, so I feel comfortable voting for a third party candidate I don't completely agree with just for the sake of encouraging more candidates.

I keep hearing you guys say this and can't help but think, "This is how the Brits got Brexit" Please don't do this. Please. We don't want to be the the disbelieving hoards who wake up crying the morning after asking ourselves, "what in Gods name have we done???"

[Soror]

I will be voting, there is way too much on the line to not vote. Like most I'm not thrilled with either candidate but run of the mill political scandals is far less scary than turning back the clock on civil rights(let's bring back detainment camps doesn't that sound like a good idea) and barreling into WW3 with guns blazing. I'd really like to vote 3rd party and was leaning that way but I just can't do it with so much on the line. On the positive side I think this crazy election is going to bring higher levels of political involvement and perhaps some real change to our flawed election system.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I hate jury duty too (and was called because of voting in 2012 for a candidate that lost!  obnoxious) but I have not heard of that particular reason for disliking it.  Do you think there should be no juries/judges or is it that you're okay with someone else doing it on your behalf, you just don't believe in doing it yourself?

I'm sorry, I was half asleep when I wrote my response and I should never have mentioned my views on jury duty.  How I feel about it and why is a big ol' ball of something I don't want to discuss and very few would understand and even fewer would agree with my reasoning anyway.

[ikslo]

I keep hearing you guys say this and can't help but think, "This is how the Brits got Brexit" Please don't do this. Please. We don't want to be the the disbelieving hoards who wake up crying the morning after asking ourselves, "what in Gods name have we done???"

But see, I'd rather not have it on my conscience to have voted for either of the two main options. And yet I can't not vote. Third party vote for me, and I don't see it as a vote for the other side, because to me I'm not on either side to begin with. I will look at the results and be flabbergasted that anyone voted for either of them.

[Um_2_4]

I do not belong to any party, and live in a state where I am 99.999% sure I know what the final result will be, but I will be watching the results that night. Surprises have happened.

We will vote in this case for the one least likely to end us up in nuclear war (or my family living in a detention camp). 

[Guest]

There is literally no outcome to this election that will make me feel good about the direction we'll go in the next 4 years. That feels really hopeless.

[Barb_]

But see, I'd rather not have it on my conscience to have voted for either of the two main options. And yet I can't not vote. Third party vote for me, and I don't see it as a vote for the other side, because to me I'm not on either side to begin with. I will look at the results and be flabbergasted that anyone voted for either of them.

It's so beyond a sides thing though. There is only one candidate who has a reasonable likelihood of leading us into nuclear winter.

[ikslo]

It's so beyond a sides thing though. There is only one candidate who has a reasonable likelihood of leading us into nuclear winter.

Board rules prevent me from responding.

[Guest]

It's so beyond a sides thing though. There is only one candidate who has a reasonable likelihood of leading us into nuclear winter.

Would that be Hillary being bombed by the Iranians? North Koreans? Or Trump using the military instead of financial deals? Who can say, and who can fairly speculate?

 

If you're of the opinion that only one candidate is potentially dangerous to Americwn interests that is incredibly naive. The plain fact is that we live in dangerous times and our waning country still wields a fair bit of power, both economic and military. Any leader chosen has a serious charge to use that wisely and not diminish or endanger the population unduly. I'm not sure either is well suited to navigate that based on their history and lack of it, both.

 

But whoever is nominated, I pray they will be wise, shrewd, and protect the most people possible by whatever means that requires. It's a balance I don't envy either of them trying to manage. Listening to solid advice from their cabinets and rejecting their initial impulses in favor of more depth of assessment is my greatest hope for whoever gets elected. However we cannot deny, with a straight face, that any president of the United States is in a difficult and dangerous position, and all choices they make have consequences in the greater world stage. We cannot control our enemies, but we choose how to respond. And in this day and age that is neither straightforward nor without moral plight.

 

Partisanship and confirmation bias are the perils we must avoid in the meantime, and both sides are at risk of it. I caution that we don't fool ourselves into believing the worst of those we disagree with and the best of ourselves in this cycle. Or even that a third option is somehow better or safer or abstaining is equivalent to moral purity.

 

Caution. Thoughtfulness. The more people who vote with that in mind the better, and prayers to whoever our next leader is that they can execute the massI've and entirely unclear task set before them in this set of geopolitical circumstances.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Would that be Hillary being bombed by the Iranians? North Koreans? Or Trump using the military instead of financial deals? Who can say, and who can fairly speculate?

 

If you're of the opinion that only one candidate is potentially dangerous to Americwn interests that is incredibly naive. The plain fact is that we live in dangerous times and our waning country still wields a fair bit of power, both economic and military. Any leader chosen has a serious charge to use that wisely and not diminish or endanger the population unduly. I'm not sure either is well suited to navigate that based on their history and lack of it, both.

 

But whoever is nominated, I pray they will be wise, shrewd, and protect the most people possible by whatever means that requires. It's a balance I don't envy either of them trying to manage. Listening to solid advice from their cabinets and rejecting their initial impulses in favor of more depth of assessment is my greatest hope for whoever gets elected. However we cannot deny, with a straight face, that any president of the United States is in a difficult and dangerous position, and all choices they make have consequences in the greater world stage. We cannot control our enemies, but we choose how to respond. And in this day and age that is neither straightforward nor without moral plight.

 

Partisanship and confirmation bias are the perils we must avoid in the meantime, and both sides are at risk of it. I caution that we don't fool ourselves into believing the worst of those we disagree with and the best of ourselves in this cycle. Or even that a third option is somehow better or safer or abstaining is equivalent to moral purity.

 

Caution. Thoughtfulness. The more people who vote with that in mind the better, and prayers to whoever our next leader is that they can execute the massI've and entirely unclear task set before them in this set of geopolitical circumstances.

 

Neither North Korea nor Iran are capable of causing a nuclear winter.  I personally don't think either candidate could either, as it takes more than a presidential tantrum to put the launch codes in place.  I do think one candidate is more likely than the other to shoot his/her mouth off about doing so though.

 

 

 

[Farrar]

I will vote in the elections I have a right to vote in.

 

I'm not fully enfranchised though and I don't have congressmen or senators. My home rule can be taken away on a whim.

 

I find it... sad? pathetic? offensive?... I don't even know the right word... that so many people have those rights and take them for granted and don't exercise them at all.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Farrar

[Barb_]

Neither North Korea nor Iran are capable of causing a nuclear winter. I personally don't think either candidate could either, as it takes more than a presidential tantrum to put the launch codes in place. I do think one candidate is more likely than the other to shoot his/her mouth off about doing so though.

 

 

 

Since this was exactly my thought process I will just give it a thumbs up

[happi duck]

I keep hearing you guys say this and can't help but think, "This is how the Brits got Brexit" Please don't do this. Please. We don't want to be the the disbelieving hoards who wake up crying the morning after asking ourselves, "what in Gods name have we done???"

This x 1000000!

 

We've had a warning! We can't assume anything!

[Bluegoat]

I keep hearing you guys say this and can't help but think, "This is how the Brits got Brexit" Please don't do this. Please. We don't want to be the the disbelieving hoards who wake up crying the morning after asking ourselves, "what in Gods name have we done???"

 

I can't really see it as similar, given that the British referendum didn't actually have a third choice.

 

If anything, it would be more true to say that some people voted for something they didn't particularly really support, which is in some ways similar to voting for a candidate you don't really like over one you do.

[MercyA]

I find it... sad? pathetic? offensive?... I don't even know the right word... that so many people have those rights and take them for granted and don't exercise them at all.

 

I would have to set aside everything that is important to me and deny my conscience and religious beliefs to vote for either major candidate. If you find that sad, pathetic, and/or offensive, that is okay with me. I don't take my rights for granted, but I see no imperative to always exercise all of them. I have the legal right to do plenty of things that are not in line with my values.

 

I understand you need to follow your conscience in all of this, but please consider that others also need to follow theirs.

Edited August 6, 2016 by MercyA

[Farrar]

I would have to set aside everything that is important to me and deny my conscience and religious beliefs to vote for either major candidate. If you find that sad, pathetic, and/or offensive, that is okay with me. I don't take my rights for granted, but I see no imperative to always exercise all of them. I have the legal right to do plenty of things that are not in line with my values.

 

I understand you need to follow your conscience in all of this, but please consider that others also need to follow theirs.

 

I never said a thing about the two major parties. But you can write someone in. You can vote third party. You can show up and leave the line for president blank, which I consider a statement, and vote in all the downballot races.

 

Sorry, but I'm sticking by my belief that people who don't exercise their right to vote have really forfeited something. I do find it pathetic and offensive, especially to those of us who don't have the right.

[Frances]

Ha. You mean like this?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no-nominations-to-the-supreme-court-in-an-election-year/2016/02/22/ea8cde5a-d9b1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

 

That is a dishonest or at least shortsighted claim. Not to mention too political for this board to engage further and still respect Susan's rules.

No, I was just referring to the historical fact that you have to go back to 1895 to find a Democratic president nominee for the Supreme Court approved by a Republican controlled Senate. But you can find several more recent examples of the opposite occurring.

[luuknam]

You can show up and leave the line for president blank, which I consider a statement, and vote in all the downballot races.

 

Assuming a paper ballot, don't just leave it blank. Just completely cross it out altogether so people counting the votes can't just write something in.

[hornblower]

Actually it seems a president can just launch on their own

 

According to Cheney in 2008:

 

"He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

 

This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.

 

"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead"

 

More discussion of this at the link

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

[Guest]

Thread is going to get locked if y'all don't stop namin' names.

[heartlikealion]

I heard an analogy on the radio I will repeat a version of here. For all practical intents and purposes, federal elections are like RSVP cards which ask you to select the steak or the vegetarian option. You can cross out both steak and vegetarian and write "Wild Alaskan King Salmon" but when you arrive at the event, they are going to serve you the steak or the vegetarian option. They aren't going to go adding stuff to the menu just on your account.

 

If one finds either the steak or the vegetarian option absolutely vile, they are probably better off making sure they requested whichever they could live with rather than asking for their ideal preference. If one considers the steak and the vegetarian option equally vile, ask for the salmon but expect to make a meal of the sides and rolls.

 

I am an active member of a major political party. I don't always agree with the party but I'm happy as a member and volunteer because it is generally the best direction in my estimation. There have been a number of times at the local and congressional district level I have backed someone who was not from my party but at the end of the day, I do not consider myself an independent voter. If I were in a situation where I considered my party's candidate to not just be less than ideal but to be actually dangerous, besides perhaps rethinking my party affliliation, I would absolutely consider voting for the other major party candidate provided I didn't think they were just as bad.

 

Because I live in a state that is not in play, the strongest thing I can withhold from a candidate is not my vote. It is my volunteer time, my GOTV efforts and my financial support. If I lived in a state that was in play, the answer to the above dilemma would be manifestly obvious to me.

 

I support everyone's right to decide for themselves but the above summarizes my personal reasoning. Luckily enough for me, my party nominated someone whom I generally support and who I absolutely do not consider to be the lesser of two evils.

 

Supposedly there might be time to add salmon to the menu. I mean the debate. So I'm not sending in my RSVP yet LOL

 

 

[Joshin]

Doing my best  to leave political details out.... I'm unhappy my candidate didn't become the party nominee, but I will still most likely be voting for the party although I am not too fond of the current candidate. My reasoning: The two most major third parties each have something on their platform that are on my no-compromise list. I have a short list of things I can't compromise on when selecting a party for my vote, so this is a biggie. The other major party has several things in their party platform that are on my no-compromise list. I agree with about 90% of my current party's platform although I don't agree with their nominee.

 

When stuff gets hard, I vote for the party platform that most matches my desires. Less than perfect, but better than tossing away my vote for whatever it is worth.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Actually it seems a president can just launch on their own

 

According to Cheney in 2008:

 

"He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

 

This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.

 

"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead"

 

More discussion of this at the link

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

Someone else actually enters the codes. As a rule, I respect our military leadership enough to think they would rightfully refuse an insane order. Edited August 7, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[fraidycat]

Someone else actually enters the codes. As a rule, I respect our military leadership enough to think they would rightfully refuse an insane order.

I don't know how accurate or how many as the articles are "old" - from the primaries, but several high level Pentagon officers supposedley threaten they will drop retirement papers if a certain person becomes CIC - namely to avoid having to be the decision maker in this type of scenario.

 

Checks and balances are great, as long as they are firmly in place.

Edited August 7, 2016 by fraidycat

[Pawz4me]

Someone else actually enters the codes. As a rule, I respect our military leadership enough to think they would rightfully refuse an insane order.

Which would undoubtedly lead to some sort of Constitutional crisis. Much better to entrust those codes to someone whose sanity isn't in question.

[Barb_]

I can't really see it as similar, given that the British referendum didn't actually have a third choice.

 

If anything, it would be more true to say that some people voted for something they didn't particularly really support, which is in some ways similar to voting for a candidate you don't really like over one you do.

I was speaking more toward the idea of "sending a message." With Brexit there was an unspoken third choice. There was the "remain" vote, the "leave" vote, and the "I'm Not Terribly Happy With Either Of These Choices" vote. Those third choice people were so confident the remains would win that they all voted to leave, because they felt their leave vote would safely send a message of their discontent. But they got something they didn't want and didn't count on.

 

That's the possible fallout of too many third party votes.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Barb_

[Barb_]

Someone else actually enters the codes. As a rule, I respect our military leadership enough to think they would rightfully refuse an insane order.

I hope they are on their toes. As you seem to be aware, a certain candidate is reported to have a seriously itchy trigger finger. I can't link, but anyone who hasn't yet read about it can google the candidate name and "nukes" or candidate name and "CIA director" and candidate name and "John Noonan" to read more about it.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Barb_

[happypamama]

I don't think a third party is a viable option the way the electoral system is currently set up. The problem is that most states use a winner takes all system for allocating electoral college votes--it is that system that locks us into two parties.

 

And the two party system leads to an extremely adversarial political climate. Though it does also tend to force both major parties towards the middle, in practice if not in ideology.

 

I would be interested to see what would happen if every state switched to proportional electoral college votes.

I agree. But then again, I don't really think the electoral college is a great plan anyway. I once waited outside in the sun for two hours, pregnant and with a two-year-old in tow, to cast my Presidential vote in a state that was overwhelmingly the opposite color from me. I knew there was no way my vote actually mattered to the electoral college decision, but I still voted because I believe in exercising my right to vote. But how many people didn't bother in that state because they knew they weren't the majority? Might more people bother to vote if they knew that their minority votes would add in with other minority votes from other states and maybe make a difference in the end? Didn't Bush actually lose the popular vote in 2000, after all was said and done, but he had the votes in the right places to win the electoral college? That seems nutty to me.

 

Maybe I'd like to see a primary for all parties, open to everyone. Narrow down the candidates to a reasonable number -- five? Six? Ten? Not twenty. You might end up with two Democrats and four Republicans and a Libertarian or two in the end, and those could be on the November ballot. Give us more than either-or! Clearly, the two party system really doesn't represent the American people well anymore, or at least not this year.

[happypamama]

Also, I'd like to see candidates listed randomly in the ballot, in different orders randomly, so that they aren't alphabetical. How many people have been elected to minor positions (probably not President) because they were first on the ballot?

[DawnM]

Are you voting in person or absentee?

 

I am seriously considering voting absentee this time around.  I need to mail in the paperwork.  

 

I will be working full time and really don't want to stand in line for over an hour or longer after a full day of work.   Two elections ago I waited over 1.5 hours, last election I waited almost an hour.

[Barb_]

The only problem with spreading the votes out is what we're currently experiencing. You can have a relatively moderate majority spread thinly among too many candidates giving rise to a solid fringe vote that wins, defying the majority. Too many ideologically similar candidates (center, right-center and left-center) end up diluting the voting populace.

 

There were 16 (17? I forget) Republican candidates in the primary. Far too many of them stayed in for far too long. There were two I would have been satisfied with as a candidate. But they all cannibalized each other.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Barb_

[MercyA]

I never said a thing about the two major parties. But you can write someone in. You can vote third party. You can show up and leave the line for president blank, which I consider a statement, and vote in all the downballot races.

 

Sorry, but I'm sticking by my belief that people who don't exercise their right to vote have really forfeited something. I do find it pathetic and offensive, especially to those of us who don't have the right.

 

Both of the major third party candidates have stances with which I disagree and on which I will not compromise.

 

It's surprisingly difficult to find out where local politicians actually stand on the issues most important to me. In the past, I've searched without much luck for information and tried to contact candidates personally only to be put off. Information about state politicians is slightly easier to find, but it's nearly impossible to find candidates who are both pro-peace and pro-life (how sad is that?). 

 

The one time I wrote someone in, I recall that my vote did not even seem to be reported or counted, at least in the first results. It was for someone fairly well-known who was being written in by others as well. (I admittedly did not follow up in the days following the election.) 

 

I believe there are better ways to spend my time and energy. I have little to no faith in political solutions for the problems in our world. YMMV.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Which would undoubtedly lead to some sort of Constitutional crisis. Much better to entrust those codes to someone whose sanity isn't in question.

 

Oh I agree.  I would rather we not be in that position, but overall I am not concerned that one insane person could lead to a nuclear nightmare.  With that said...all bets are off if you get a flock of them here and elsewhere at the same time.

 

The larger concern is that a president can react poorly to a minor crisis and blow it up into a larger one. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

REMINDER.

 

No partisan politics. That's the board policy. You don't have to like it, but you DO have to abide by it.

 

I deleted the posts that edged too far in that direction.

 

SWB

 

Thank you for putting up with us, Susan. I know we're treading a fine line here, but it's an important discussion, IMO, and it has helped me a lot specifically. 

 

I would be interested to see what would happen if every state switched to proportional electoral college votes.

 

 

So would I.