I really hate this condescension of people who support 3rd parties like they don’t understand how elections work.
I believe that the best way, and the only guaranteed way, to prevent a Trump presidency is to vote for Hillary Clinton, but this particular example doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying, “Imagine there are 12 people in your state, 5 vote for Trump, 4 vote for Clinton, but 3 have broken legs due to skateboarding accidents and can’t make it to the polls. Trump wins. No one should skateboard.”
I mean, you can create a hypothetical scenario where anything leads to a Trump presidency. Come up with a better argument.
you can’t reduce the argument of who to vote for to absurdity like that. one of two candidates is going to win. a vote for a third party is a vote that doesn’t contribute to either of those candidates winning.
people who support third parties to the extent of voting for them in a close race where a dangerously unqualified conservative candidate could beat an experienced moderate ACTUALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW AMERICAN ELECTIONS WORK, because we have a recent example of this kind of pig-headed foot-shooting liberal grandstanding, when enough progressive voters made symbolic votes for nader instead of gore that george bush won and kicked off eight years of misrule. had those liberals who voted for nader died in skateboard accidents, sure, george bush would have also won. but they weren’t skateboarding instead of voting.
they went and spent their vote on a useless protest of the two party system, rather than ensuring the candidate that would actually best protect their interests won. it’s not like saying ‘well anyone who didn’t vote for any reason at all is also at fault’. the question is ‘do you want A or B?’ and you can’t have C. you will not get C. we are not even in negotiations to get C. you are going to get A, which is a stale cookie, or B, which is a bag of angry wasps, and if enough people dick around asking for C we are all going to get B.
and hell yeah, i’m being condescending to third-party voters. they’re being deliberately stupid. THIS EXACT, WELL-DOCUMENTED SHIT WENT DOWN 15 YEARS AGO. how can you possibly think we’d get a better outcome doing it again?
“people who support third parties to the extent of voting for them in a close race where a dangerously unqualified conservative candidate could beat an experienced moderate ACTUALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW AMERICAN ELECTIONS WORK, because we have a recent example of this kind of pig-headed foot-shooting liberal grandstanding, when enough progressive voters made symbolic votes for nader instead of gore that george bush won and kicked off eight years of misrule. had those liberals who voted for nader died in skateboard accidents, sure, george bush would have also won. but they weren’t skateboarding instead of voting.”
And even more to the point. Making a symbolic vote and snubbing the system because you don’t actually ‘think’ that the candidate that you really don’t want still wont get elected is such a bad idea, I don’t even have the words for how BAD it is. This is pretty much EXACTLY what rolled out with Brexit. People made symbolic votes, and essentially ended up cutting off their nose to spite their faces.
That being said, I still want to thwap people upside the head when they state that the Spoiler Effect isn’t a thing. -_- Clearly it is.
Yep, and people keep saying that Brexit Ain’t Us
…but then they go radio silent when we mention Bush v Gore…
If you think Gore would have been any better than Bush on foreign policy or civil liberties, you haven’t been paying attention to the Obama administration. At least with Bush in office Dems had an incentive to pretend to care about civil liberties and some of the violations got press attention. This was the Democratic Party that had just spent eight years giving us welfare “reform,” NAFTA, and DADT. As of 2000 the Pepsi vs. Coke analogy was quite apt.
There’s thankfully a substantive split on domestic policy as of now, but with congress as a roadblock domestic policy doesn’t really matter very much. It required a wave election and a massive mandate to get the piecemeal Obamacare compromise (which, to be clear, was a towering achievement). And meanwhile Obama is assassinating teenage American citizens for no crime other than those of their parents, and offering no resistance to the NSA’s panopticon, most of which happened while our current nominee was Secretary of State.
Here’s what’s going to support my interests, as a near single-issue voter on civil liberties: pressuring the democrats to come up with a better nominee than a literal war criminal that gives no indication of being any better than fifth Bush term. For the fringes to have a shot at influencing electoral politics they have to be willing to walk away from the table if there’s an unacceptable candidate. Cooperate-bots get roasted in iterated prisoner’s dilemmas. When the dems look like they’re going to stop defecting against their civil libertarian wing we’ll talk again.
Guys, Gore won the election even with Nader “splitting the vote”. That didn’t matter because Bush was allocated more electoral college votes regardless of popular outcome, electoral votes which Nader got none of.
Nader did nothing wrong.
Progressives have been making noise about how social and fiscal conservatives are literally Satan for longer than I’ve been alive, but now that there’s an election to determine whether or not the Republicans will abandon social [and potentially even fiscal] conservatism in favor of neo-Nixonist proletarian nationalism, suddenly everyone’s all “oh no, we have to stop the Reaganites from losing their vehicle of national political representation!” What gives?
I can’t help but notice that in OP’s scenario:
8 people vote Hillary and don’t get her. Wasted their votes.
9 people vote Trump and don’t get the Trump they believed in as he breaks all his campaign promises like all other candidates.
3 people vote “Not Hillary” and oh look, they’re the only people who got what they wanted.