Are you a one issue voter?

[MercyA]

There have been conservative majorities on the court at times since the 70s, and Roe has never been over turned.  Thinking it will be over turned with a couple of new justices is a pipe dream.

 

Sad but true. We had a conservative President and a conservative majority in Congress, and what was done? Nothing. Also consider:

 

Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000. The Supreme Court overturned Nebraska’s "partial birth abortion ban"; 3 of the 5 justices were [conservative]-appointed.

 

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 1994. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling allowing the RICO act to be used against pro-life organizations; 7 of the 9 justices were [conservative]-appointed.

 

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992. The Supreme Court struck down laws which would have damaged Roe v. Wade and affirmed a woman’s “right†to abortion; all 5 of the justices were [conservative]-appointed.

 

Roe v. Wade, 1973. 6 of the 7 justices which voted in support of Roe v. Wade were [conservative]-appointed.

 

Edited to remove references to a specific political party.

Edited October 12, 2016 by MercyA

[MercyA]

I just have to ask.

What do you think will happen if Roe v. Wade ever gets overturned? Abortion just magically disappears? 

 

The killing of already born humans hasn't magically disappeared, either. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sad but true. We had a conservative President and a conservative majority in Congress, and what was done? Nothing. Also consider:

 

Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000. The Supreme Court overturned Nebraska’s "partial birth abortion ban"; 3 of the 5 justices were [conservative]-appointed.

 

National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, 1994. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling allowing the RICO act to be used against pro-life organizations; 7 of the 9 justices were [conservative]-appointed.

 

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992. The Supreme Court struck down laws which would have damaged Roe v. Wade and affirmed a woman’s “right†to abortion; all 5 of the justices were [conservative]-appointed.

 

Roe v. Wade, 1973. 6 of the 7 justices which voted in support of Roe v. Wade were [conservative]-appointed.

 

Edited to remove references to a specific political party.

 

I disagree that it is sad.  I prefer for justices to do the right thing even when it disagrees with their personal beliefs.

[MercyA]

Jesus wasn't one issue. I'm not either. 

 

True, but did He ever say, "Let us do evil that good may come?" (Romans 3:8). 

 

The question for me is this: How much evil does God need me to support to accomplish His will? The answer is, of course, none.

 

I will not support evil, and I will leave the consequences to Him.

[poppy]

So in America we have a three candidates on every ballot in every state but American's will choose murder or rape anyway because they are told the other option won't win. I'll hold out at not voting for evil and I will blame all those who choose evil when they have another option because they actually voted for it. I choose another option and you choose rape. Who's to blame when the rapist wins. Really.

Won't win AND won't effectively legislate AND doesn't reflect very many Americans values AND fairly scary from a foreign policy perspective . If a viable and competent candidate ran 3rd party --- like, say, Rubio or Biden or Bloomberg --- it'd be a whole new ballgame .

[MercyA]

I disagree that it is sad.  

 

I know.  :)  You still made a good point.

Edited October 12, 2016 by MercyA

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Won't win AND won't effectively legislate AND doesn't reflect very many Americans values AND fairly scary from a foreign policy perspective . If a viable and competent candidate ran 3rd party --- like, say, Rubio or Biden or Bloomberg --- it'd be a whole new ballgame .

 

^^^^This.

 

One of the issues with 3rd party candidates is that they tend to run towards extremes regarding certain core issues.  They can't even capture all of the disaffected voters as the populace as a whole trends moderate (across a spectrum of course but still generally in the middle) which means that more extreme positions will force some voters away, even if they don't like the two main party candidates.

 

A more centrist 3rd party candidate with a name would have had a chance in this election, and actually would have a chance to govern.  Stein and Johnson are too far outside the mainstream to make it work.

[eternalsummer]

Bloomberg was considering running if Hilary didn't get the nomination.  But here's the deal with a third party: unless they can get an actual majority of the electoral college, which is pretty unlikely at this point even with a centrist running, it just goes to the House and the House picks Paul Ryan or some such.  So not a lot of reason for Bloomberg or anyone else to spend 6 gorillion dollars.

[MaeFlowers]

So in America we have a three candidates on every ballot in every state but American's will choose murder or rape anyway because they are told the other option won't win. I'll hold out at not voting for evil and I will blame all those who choose evil when they have another option because they actually voted for it. I choose another option and you choose rape. Who's to blame when the rapist wins. Really.

Except that in our system, a third party vote is still a vote for evil and, more than likely, the greater of your two evils.

 

It's like this. You have four people in your house. Two people want pizza and two want burgers. Then, the fourth person decides suddenly they are a vegetarian. Now you have two burgers, one vote pizza and on vote veggies. You could have negotiated with the pizza person to get veggie pizza but instead you went rogue. Now you don't get veggies at all. You've basically thrown your vote in with other side. You get burgers.

Edited October 12, 2016 by MaeFlowers

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If there was a way to push through real campaign finance reform, there would be less of a need to focus on adding a third party. 

[eternalsummer]

Except that in our system, a third party vote is still a vote for evil and, more than likely, the greater of your two evils.

 

It's like this. You have four people in your house. Two people want pizza and two want burgers. Then, the fourth person decides suddenly they are a vegetarian. Now you have two burgers, one vote pizza and on vote veggies. You could have negotiated with the pizza person to get veggie pizza but instead you went rogue. Now you don't get veggies at all. You've basically thrown your vote in with other side. You get burgers.

 

 

But if the vegetarian is actually a vegan, he *cannot* eat pizza or burgers at all.  There is no reason for him to negotiate or compromise because it is antithetical to him; he can't participate in the purchase of something he considers fundamentally unacceptable. 

 

So he abstains.

 

See "The ones who walk away from Omelas" (Le Guin)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But if the vegetarian is actually a vegan, he *cannot* eat pizza or burgers at all.  There is no reason for him to negotiate or compromise because it is antithetical to him; he can't participate in the purchase of something he considers fundamentally unacceptable. 

 

So he abstains.

 

See "The ones who walk away from Omelas" (Le Guin)

 

In which case he can't complain about others eating burgers.

[frogger]

It's not burgers though. It's dead bodies and destroyed lives but you just keep having your burgers. You obviously like the foreign policy of the last decade.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not burgers though. It's dead bodies and destroyed lives but you just keep having your burgers. You obviously like the foreign policy of the last decade.

 

Your comment makes no sense.

 

[frogger]

Think foreign policy. It makes perfect sense. Think Taliban, think Syria, think Libya. Think war. For many (American soldiers included) these are huge issues not burgers.

 

 

Domestic policy is often more controlled by Congress, States, and local legislation in varying degrees. That is not the case with foreign policy. Our local elections and our working from the ground up will not affect foreign policy. Therefore we should think more about foreign policy when electing the president. So I'm not sure why we are talking about pizza and burgers. It isn't just a matter of taste or preference. With many local elections the analogy works fine.

Edited October 12, 2016 by frogger

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Think foreign policy. It makes perfect sense. Think Taliban, think Syria, think Libya. Think war. For many (American soldiers included) these are huge issues not burgers.

 

 

Domestic policy is often more controlled by Congress, States, and local legislation in varying degrees. That is not the case with foreign policy. Our local elections and our working from the ground up will not affect local policy. Therefore we should think more about foreign policy when electing the president. So I'm not sure why we are talking about pizza and burgers. It isn't just a matter of taste or preference.

 

Some of those vegetarians are why Bush was elected, which directly lead to some of what you are talking about.  Hope you enjoyed the tofu.

[frogger]

Democrats and Republicans have had the same foreign policy for too long. I guess tofu is all I'll ever get.

 

I suppose you blame Bush for all the garbage that has happened the last 8 years with Obama and Clinton as secretary of state because that is what partisans do. They blame the other side. I guess it makes them feel better about their tofu.

Edited October 12, 2016 by frogger

[MaeFlowers]

But if the vegetarian is actually a vegan, he *cannot* eat pizza or burgers at all. There is no reason for him to negotiate or compromise because it is antithetical to him; he can't participate in the purchase of something he considers fundamentally unacceptable.

 

So he abstains.

 

See "The ones who walk away from Omelas" (Le Guin)

Honestly, abstaining makes more sense to me than voting third party.

[MaeFlowers]

Democrats and Republicans have had the same foreign policy for too long. I guess tofu is all I'll ever get.

 

I suppose you blame Bush for all the garbage that has happened the last 8 years with Obama and Clinton as secretary of state because that is what partisans do. They blame the other side. I guess it makes them feel better about their tofu.

I do blame both sides. However, I want a choice in what happens to me. I want to pick my poison, as they say. Given the realities of our system, if I vote third party or abstain, I letting someone else pick for me. No thanks.

[IfIOnly]

But I'm pro-life and don't see the Supreme Court thing as crucial. As stated before, we can't legislate abortion away - esp in these modern times. We could potentially make it illegal as it was before, but that won't really stop anyone from getting one.

 

These next questions are primarily directed at Christians (because it's many Christians who tend to believe this way in my IRL experience).

 

Where does Jesus or Paul or anyone in the NT advocate using gov't to set Christian standards for all? When I read it, I see oodles of places where it's a voluntary change of the heart and a choice to live following God - and many specifics of that is between God and the individual. There were all sorts of similar things going on back in the NT times (humans are humans), yet I see us being told not to judge the world - just to live our own life within it. We can make more judgments within our church (money makers in the temple anyone?), but outside of it? And protesting to Caesar (or any leader) to change anything for all? I'm just not seeing it anywhere.

 

And if we were to do it anyway, how does that make us any better than some other countries that more or less mandate belief in their god, many of which countries get condemned by Christians. I don't see God ever mandating that we force belief - or even that we can do that if we wanted to.

 

I'm all for protecting babies, both unborn and born, but I just can't see that happening in the real world merely by changing laws. It's hearts and conditions that need to change to give babies better odds. Even then, I never expect 100%. It's simply the way the real world is - and has been pretty much forever.

 

Then too, I'm really curious what makes this so important of an issue that other aspects of our (collective) lives - the way people are treated, the way we care for God's world, the way we care for the alien (foreigner) living among us, the way we support widows and orphans - most of the "stuff" that is actually addressed more in the Bible I read, pales by comparison to that one issue (or two, because sex lives of others outside the church are often a biggie for some too - yet aren't addressed nearly as often as how we are to treat others).

He doesn't, and there is quite a bit of conflict with some of the Israelite people regarding this in the Gospels. People wanted that, but Jesus came to seek and save the lost. We're going through SOTW3 right now and it always stuns me how unlike Christ and his teachings the Catholics and Protestants who fought for political power were. Edited October 12, 2016 by ifIonlyhadabrain

[creekland]

 

Nowhere that I see. We are to obey God, love our neighbors, live as salt and light, and preach the Gospel. That said, there are things we can do to stop abortion that have nothing to do with government policy. 

...

 

I do wish more people would consider personally talking to women who are considering abortion. Share information and truth. Offer help. What they do with that truth and that help is up to them.

 

 

Because it is the deliberate killing of human beings. The only other issue I'd put on par with it would be unjust wars. There is no Presidential candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience. 

 

 

I am all for taking, discussion, and anything else that changes the heart.  I am very pro-life.

 

But even then, we also have to accept we live in the real world - just as folks did in the OT and NT times when children were sometimes sacrificed in some cultures - and realize we can't force the world to agree with us.  When we get hung up on that one issue, we can overlook so many oodles more that we could possibly help and often by helping with some of those, we save more babies (and other lives) in the process.

 

We will never have an Ideal World here.  We have to do the best we can with the Real World we live in using guidance from God with what He felt was important to tell us.  If He'd felt we had to push for laws within gov't, I'm sure He'd have told us and modeled it.  Interestingly enough, those who pushed for religious laws in the NT were the Pharisees and Jesus didn't really have much nice to say about them.  It was the heart that mattered and showing kindness, helping others, etc.

 

 

He doesn't, and there is quite a bit of conflict with some of the Israelite people regarding this in the Gospels. People wanted that, but Jesus came to seek and save the lost. We're going through SOTW3 right now and it always stuns me how unlike Christ and his teachings the Catholics and Protestants who fought for political power were.

 

It boggles my mind (and some of my IRL circles when this is the topic of discussion) how unlike Christ many Christians are.  So many know stories or soundbites of what Christians are supposed to be or do, but it's almost always taken from others (people), not the actual Bible and looking in context at the NT.  My youngest son has discovered this recently as he is now leading Bible studies at his college. Very few have read the Bible.  So many start from stereotypes of what "should be."  It was a major discussion point we had over the summer at home.  

 

But I'm going to stop there as that can get us really off track from the OP.

[ktgrok]

True, but did He ever say, "Let us do evil that good may come?" (Romans 3:8). 

 

The question for me is this: How much evil does God need me to support to accomplish His will? The answer is, of course, none.

 

I will not support evil, and I will leave the consequences to Him.

Good for you. I get that. 

 

For me, I think God knows that are candidates aren't perfect. I think voting for who I'm voting for isn't supporting evil, not in a big bad evil kind of way. Or at least, I don't think more evil will be perpetuated on the people by electing that person. And some evil will be stopped or prevented. 

 

I'm pro life, but that includes feeding the hungry, being against the death penalty, healthcare, etc. Not just abortion. So if one party gives lip service to making abortion illegal, but the other has plans that in practical ways will actual lower abortion rates although not stop them (which I don't believe the other candidate will do anyway), and is more likely to feed people, provide medical care so they don't die, etc then that is better to me. I think God wants me to support that. No matter which candidate is labeled Pro Life or Pro Choice, because it isn't about labels to me, it's about what actually happens after they are elected. 

 

And finally, I think Jesus was more practical than that. We can disagree, but the Jesus that "worked" on the Sabbath to me put practical matters ahead of ideology. I do understand not everyone would agree. 

[ktgrok]

But if the vegetarian is actually a vegan, he *cannot* eat pizza or burgers at all.  There is no reason for him to negotiate or compromise because it is antithetical to him; he can't participate in the purchase of something he considers fundamentally unacceptable. 

 

So he abstains.

 

See "The ones who walk away from Omelas" (Le Guin)

 In this case you aren't talking lesser of two evils, you are talking equivalent evils, which is a whole different thing. 

 

Many do NOT feel there are equivalent evils in this election. 

[ktgrok]

Some of those vegetarians are why Bush was elected, which directly lead to some of what you are talking about.  Hope you enjoyed the tofu.

 

Yup, I was one of them. Voted third party. Regret it terribly. My protest vote brought zero good into the world. It didn't change the 2 party system. It didn't change anything. It just allowed the greater evil to triumph. 

[creekland]

Good for you. I get that. 

 

For me, I think God knows that are candidates aren't perfect. I think voting for who I'm voting for isn't supporting evil, not in a big bad evil kind of way. Or at least, I don't think more evil will be perpetuated on the people by electing that person. And some evil will be stopped or prevented. 

 

I'm pro life, but that includes feeding the hungry, being against the death penalty, healthcare, etc. Not just abortion. So if one party gives lip service to making abortion illegal, but the other has plans that in practical ways will actual lower abortion rates although not stop them (which I don't believe the other candidate will do anyway), and is more likely to feed people, provide medical care so they don't die, etc then that is better to me. I think God wants me to support that. No matter which candidate is labeled Pro Life or Pro Choice, because it isn't about labels to me, it's about what actually happens after they are elected. 

 

And finally, I think Jesus was more practical than that. We can disagree, but the Jesus that "worked" on the Sabbath to me put practical matters ahead of ideology. I do understand not everyone would agree. 

 

You and I see things very similarly.

[LauraBeth475]

I have been a 'litmus test' voter in past elections. In this election, I don't find either main party candidate acceptable on that issue, so it's debatable whether I will vote for the candidate I consider to be most competent, or vote a third party candidate that is more aligned with my values.

[MercyA]

Good for you. I get that. 

 

For me, I think God knows that are candidates aren't perfect. I think voting for who I'm voting for isn't supporting evil, not in a big bad evil kind of way. Or at least, I don't think more evil will be perpetuated on the people by electing that person. And some evil will be stopped or prevented. 

 

I'm pro life, but that includes feeding the hungry, being against the death penalty, healthcare, etc. Not just abortion. So if one party gives lip service to making abortion illegal, but the other has plans that in practical ways will actual lower abortion rates although not stop them (which I don't believe the other candidate will do anyway), and is more likely to feed people, provide medical care so they don't die, etc then that is better to me. I think God wants me to support that. No matter which candidate is labeled Pro Life or Pro Choice, because it isn't about labels to me, it's about what actually happens after they are elected. 

 

And finally, I think Jesus was more practical than that. We can disagree, but the Jesus that "worked" on the Sabbath to me put practical matters ahead of ideology. I do understand not everyone would agree. 

 

It isn't about labels to me, either. They have proved to be virtually meaningless in so many cases.

 

Jesus really doesn't strike me as being pragmatic. This is the Man who said, "Be ye perfect." The bar is high, to say the least.

 

But I know you do get it, and that you have thought long and carefully about your position as well. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

[eternalsummer]

 In this case you aren't talking lesser of two evils, you are talking equivalent evils, which is a whole different thing. 

 

Many do NOT feel there are equivalent evils in this election. 

 

 

Sure, that's generally true.  But for people who won't vote for either main party candidate, I think they generally either see both evils as relatively equal (although different in nature) or both as so far beyond acceptable that it doesn't matter (like if you die of a heart attack or get shot, then burned, then cut into bits - you can only be so dead).  

 

fwiw, although on this board most people seem to think (and certainly the liberal and mainstream media push the notion) that Trump is the beyond evil candidate while Hilary is just garden variety not great, the opposite perception is the case on the conservative side (the part of it that is willing to vote for Trump without being a real fan) - you hear it on talk radio all the time.  They see Hilary as the Evil candidate and Trump as the Flawed But At Least Not Hilary.

[eternalsummer]

 In this case you aren't talking lesser of two evils, you are talking equivalent evils, which is a whole different thing. 

 

Many do NOT feel there are equivalent evils in this election. 

 

 

Further, a vegan may very well see pizza and burgers as not morally equivalent, but both morally unacceptable..  I know for me, factory farmed beef is bad enough that I will not eat it in any circumstance, but I think gestation crates for sows (factory farmed pork) is much worse.

[creekland]

Jesus really doesn't strike me as being pragmatic. This is the Man who said, "Be ye perfect." The bar is high, to say the least.

 

One really has to take things in context instead of picking out a verse or two.  The big story talks about so much more.  The same man who said "Be ye perfect" also said "Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone," knowing no one would fit that picture and in a situation where "the law" demanded death.

 

We try for perfection (as do many non-Christians when it comes to living their lives), but everyone knows we won't make it.  Even Paul could not.  I see your verse as encouragement to keep trying rather than giving up and saying, "well this sin in my life is ok" or "it's fine if I treat them horridly because..." as would be common for humans to rationalize.

[MercyA]

One really has to take things in context instead of picking out a verse or two.  The big story talks about so much more.  The same man who said "Be ye perfect" also said "Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone," knowing no one would fit that picture and in a situation where "the law" demanded death.

 

We try for perfection (as do many non-Christians when it comes to living their lives), but everyone knows we won't make it.  Even Paul could not.  I see your verse as encouragement to keep trying rather than giving up and saying, "well this sin in my life is ok" or "it's fine if I treat them horridly because..." as would be common for humans to rationalize.

 

Yes, of course. In fact, I went back and skimmed Matthew 5 before posting that verse. For those who are interested in the immediate context (and it is very applicable to this election, I think):

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

 

I cannot support *anyone* who legitimizes or actively promotes killing, which is the opposite of love. ("Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15) 

Edited October 12, 2016 by MercyA

[MercyA]

dp

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by MercyA

[Happy2BaMom]

This is rapidly turning into a political thread, against the wishes of the OP. 

 

Must be election season!

[amy58103]

For Presidential and US Senate elections, I am a single-issue / limit-test voter (i.e. abortion).  

 

For local and state elections I am a single-issue voter (i.e. gun safety).  

 

For US House of Rep, I am a limit-test voter (i.e. competency).  

 

Primary elections are more "fun" ... as I usually get to pick the candidate that best fits my vision for the future of our country.  :)

[Deb in NZ]

I voted "yes" but in reality only in making my final choice does the important issue come into play.  Looking at the 4+ choices I have for POTUS I look at many issues to narrow my choices down to 2 candidates.  Then I look at those 2 candidates as to how they support or don't support my big issue (this election it's the TPPA)  I have decided to make sure my vote goes for someone I can support, not to make sure someone else doesn't get elected.  (i.e I will only vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone)  This election that means that my vote has gone for a 3rd party candidate.  My vote will count as it shows what I feel is important for our country to support.  If everyone voted for what they believe IN, instead of voting out of fear of someone else getting elected, we would have a better view of what the general population wants this country to support.  

Edited October 16, 2016 by Deb in NZ

[ktgrok]

I'm starting to realize I might be a single issue voter...with healthcare being that issue. 

[MSNative]

I voted "yes" but in reality only in making my final choice does the important issue come into play. Looking at the 4+ choices I have for POTUS I look at many issues to narrow my choices down to 2 candidates. Then I look at those 2 candidates as to how they support or don't support my big issue (this election it's the TTPA) I have decided to make sure my vote goes for someone I can support, not to make sure someone else doesn't get elected. (i.e I will only vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone) This election that means that my vote has gone for a 3rd party candidate. My vote will count as it shows what I feel is important for our country to support. If everyone voted for what they believe IN, instead of voting out of fear of someone else getting elected, we would have a better view of what the general population wants this country to support.

TTPA??? Help. I searched and got thumb tractor pulling association. While a huge issue I'm guessing it's not your big issue. ;)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

TTPA??? Help. I searched and got thumb tractor pulling association. While a huge issue I'm guessing it's not your big issue. ;)

 

I assumed she meant TPPA - often knows as TPP - Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

[MSNative]

I assumed she meant TPPA - often knows as TPP - Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Duh. That makes sense. Serves me right for posting while doing five other things. Thank CR

[Deb in NZ]

TTPA??? Help. I searched and got thumb tractor pulling association. While a huge issue I'm guessing it's not your big issue. ;)

 

TPPA = Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Terabith]

Yes.  In that "not ushering in the apocalypse" is an issue.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm not a single issue voter, never have been; but I find that usually the races I study most strongly come down to one issue being foremost *that time*.  But, what *that issue* is changes from election to election, with circumstances and also with what is on the table.  I find that in this particular election, the issue that is on the table as foremost for me (and I'm not going to say what it is, as we need to remain non-political) is different than it ever has been before, and not something I've ever even imagined as a serious possibility.  So generally, color me 'non-plussed' ATM.  And rather disgruntled.  Well, OK, seriously furious, but calmly.

 

As a Christian, I know that regardless of what happens in this election or in any other one, God is my refuge and strength.  So I'm not afraid, thanks be to Him.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[goldberry]

   If everyone voted for what they believe IN, instead of voting out of fear of someone else getting elected, we would have a better view of what the general population wants this country to support.  

 

I think that's a very valid point.  As long as a person wins handily, they have no reason to think that the country doesn't really support them.  If ever a third party candidate got a really significant portion of the vote, even if they don't win, it would at least send a message that a lot of people did not like either of the main party choices.

 

People can "say" they don't like the choices, but if you vote for them, that's all they care about.

[Deb in NZ]

I think that's a very valid point.  As long as a person wins handily, they have no reason to think that the country doesn't really support them.  If ever a third party candidate got a really significant portion of the vote, even if they don't win, it would at least send a message that a lot of people did not like either of the main party choices.

 

People can "say" they don't like the choices, but if you vote for them, that's all they care about.

 

Exactly !

[Pam in CT]

re third parties and scenario in the event that neither major party gets to 270 electoral votes

Bloomberg was considering running if Hilary didn't get the nomination.  But here's the deal with a third party: unless they can get an actual majority of the electoral college, which is pretty unlikely at this point even with a centrist running, it just goes to the House and the House picks Paul Ryan or some such.  So not a lot of reason for Bloomberg or anyone else to spend 6 gorillion dollars.

 

 

Sigh, re Bloomberg.

 

If neither major party gets to 270, it does indeed go to the House, but they can't pick Ryan or Pence or any other "compromise" candidate -- their options are restricted to the top 3 electoral vote-winners.  As per 12th Amendment:

 

...if no person have such [Electoral College] majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice....

 

Note (for what it's worth) that the House vote wouldn't have its usual distribution; it would be one-state one-vote in this event (so the winning candidate would be the one who garnered 51% of 50 states, not 51% of 540 Representatives).

 

 

This season has been pretty awful in a lot of ways, but one small silver lining is that it certainly has been one extended civics lesson, for me.

[eternalsummer]

Oh well in that case Trump would just win straight out, which was even less what Bloomberg wanted than he wanted to spend a billion dollars to elect Paul Ryan.  

 

Although - would it be from the candidates with the highest number of votes or the highest number of Elector votes?   (not that it matters at this point - but if it were electors instead of popular votes, surely the parties could engineer that somehow to put who they want in power, whoever that actually is).

 

I am so ready for this to be over too - I haven't had a candidate to vote for since early this year sometime, and it seems like every week the major party candidates (and the minor party ones, for that matter) get worse and worse.  It's a race to the bottom!  blah

[MSNative]

This election I am also a one issue voter. My issue: must understand that the laws and rules actually apply to everyone even them. So I'll be third party voting or skipping the pres. option. Goldberry makes a great point about sending a message by voting third party even if that candidate doesn't win.

 

Usually no I'm not single issue. I end up being independent because neither party is a good fit with my beliefs. So I look at the candidates and their stated policy positions and try to decide which I prefer based on the job they are running for.

[Pam in CT]

In the event that no candidate got past the 270 post, the House would have to choose between the top three winners of actual Electoral College votes actually cast for President (so, in this case, Clinton, Trump, and either Johnson/McMullin if either of them actually take an entire state or one of NE or ME's Electoral votes).  Each state would then have just one vote to cast (so the House Representatives from each state would have to come to a consensus between them on who of the three to pick).

 

The 12th Amendment does not require the House to pick the nominee who got the most electoral (or popular for that matter) votes -- if it did, then in practice we wouldn't really have a first-past-the-270-post system.  They could pick whichever of the three they could agree on.

 

 

 

(I think this is civics, not politics, but moderators will let me know if not):  

 

Nate Silver did a very thorough analysis last week on the mechanics of what would have to happen for a 3rd party candidate to come to office.  It's not impossible, but between the winner-take-all Electoral College system and the 270-post aspects of our structure, it's highly unlikely.  Our system is structured to strongly support exactly two parties, no more no less.

[purpleowl]

On the 12th amendment thing - does anyone know how exactly each state would decide its vote? Florida, for example, has 27 representatives in the House. Would they all have to agree on who would get Florida's vote? Majority agreement? Plurality? What happens if a state's delegation cannot agree on its vote?

[Pam in CT]

On the 12th amendment thing - does anyone know how exactly each state would decide its vote? Florida, for example, has 27 representatives in the House. Would they all have to agree on who would get Florida's vote? Majority agreement? Plurality? What happens if a state's delegation cannot agree on its vote?

 

There's no federal structure for determining how the collection of House Representatives (which often include Representatives from both major parties) within each state have to determine who gets the one state vote.  Individual states may or may not have prospective rules in place, but since it's such a remote possibility, many may not.  So they'd have to duke it out somehow.  

 

If a particular state cannot agree, but 26 other states do agree, then that's that: the winner would be the first past 26 (51% of 50 states).

 

If the House can't get to a 26 state majority by Inauguration Day (which, what are the odds of THAT), then theoretically the (current) Vice President becomes President.  Which, all things considered...    :leaving:

 

 

 

 

(I tell you, taking this all as one very extended civics lesson is the only silver lining I have been able to find.  Because, who knew this.  Not me, for sure.)