If you don't vote for "X" and vote third party, it's the same as voting for "Y"

Re: If you don't vote for "X" and vote third party, it's the same as voting for "Y"

TheGoverness said:

Well Johnson's inching his way closer to 15% in the polls, so I'm optimistic that he'll actually get a slot in the debates.

Click to expand...

Me too. He needs to get a lot of press. I was surprised to see the Union Leader publish that Editorial, but then again, it makes sense. Even they know that there are so many people who can't vote for either of those 2 ****sticks.

Re: If you don't vote for "X" and vote third party, it's the same as voting for "Y"

tres borrachos said:

He's on Chris Wallace's Sunday talk show tomorrow too on Fox. I hope all of this exposure helps him. He needs to be on the debate stage. Compare and contrast to the 2 clowns who we know WILL be there.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Give the guy some exposure and media coverage. If that happens, who knows what may come in November.

Re: If you don't vote for "X" and vote third party, it's the same as voting for "Y"

FieldTheorist said:

I don't really disagree, but this is also why I precisely feel that it is time to change our democratic process. It's fundamentally broken, and it's leading to the whole American civilization breaking. I will vote for Hillary this time, but it is my very, very last time propping up a corporatist Democrat.

As far as I'm concerned, the act of voting has lost meaning until we abolish the electoral college and do run-off voting, do public financing, and ban all corporate money from entering elections. I'd also prefer it if Senators were distributed and voted on nationally. Having two (extremely undemocratic, because a few 100 thousand Wyoming residents have the same two Senators as 30 million Californians and Texans) local representatives is overkill, and frankly, at this point people just use it to game the system.

The Federal government needs to represent broad national interests, not bizarre, antiquated peicemeal segments of the American population that are easily gerrymandered or otherwise diveded-and-conquered.

Click to expand...

I admit that I have looked at the US structure of democracy with change in mind. But the difficulties of redistribution of powers aside and the amount of resistance one would encounter, I was not persuaded that it was required. I do not see any major constitutional problem that changes of the type you speak would fix. It would not have made it less likely that people like Trump, BS or Clinton become President.

As a matter of fact, if anything, I think it is better than any of the constitutions I have read. It certainly goes further towards optimizing the economic welfare, than the social democratic ones, has fewer structural inconsistencies than parliamentary democracies and more robust checks and balances than any of the ones I have looked at.

This does not mean that there is no improvement possible. But such would depend on vested interests and personal preferences. Changes would be more partisan and contentious than could probably be handled.

Re: If you don't vote for "X" and vote third party, it's the same as voting for "Y"

Patrickt said:

The "If you don't vote for Trump, you are voting for Hillary" contingent is shouting the only reason they have to try and get people to vote for Donald Trump. And it's nonsense.

A vote for Donald Trump, which is your right, is a vote for Donald Trump. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Hillary Clinton. Why you are voting for them isn't really significant. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson.

Now, if I were to vote for Gary Johnson instead of the lying huckster pretending to be a Republican would that mean one less vote for Trump. Yes. Would it mean one more vote for Hillary? No. I know liberals aren't really strong on math but it's really quite simple.

Does it mean that Hillary is more likely to beat Donald? Yes. If the number who reject Donald is greater than the number who reject Hillary then Hillary is more likely to get elected. But, does it increase the number of votes Hillary gets? No. Of course not.

So, no matter how a rational person looks at it, a vote for a third-party candidate is not a vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. It's a vote for a third-party candidate.

But, why bother? Well, for four-years I can say, "Don't blame me for this mess. I voted for Dolly Parson." Whether it's Donald Trump, who is a liar, a huckster, a deadbeat, a con man, and a liberal, or Hillary Clinton, who is a liar, a liberal, and a crook who sells her public office, it will be a disaster and it won't be my fault.

Another reason is I accept the Gov. Johnson won't win but I'd like to see whichever Democrat does win takes office with less than 40% of the vote. I want everyone in the country to laugh as they talk about their "mandate from the people". I want everyone to know they were perceived not as presidential but the lesser of two disgusting weevils.

Click to expand...

The usual definition of a mandate is a presidential candidate who received 55% of the total vote or more. That is historical, although it seems anyone who wins these days always claim a mandate. But that mandate sometimes disappears rather quickly if the winner who achieved it begins to push their own agenda instead of the peoples agenda.

Eisenhower received a mandate both times he ran and used it to accomplish what he wanted. He was also smart enough to work with then senate majority leader LBJ to help him get his agenda through congress. IKE and LBJ made things pretty bipartisan.

LBJ in 1964 was the next president to achieve a mandate at the ballot box, but Vietnam eroded that so much LBJ refused to run for re-election. But a lot of political pundits puts the reason for LBJ mandate, he received 61% of the vote as being a sympathy vote as the result of JFK assassination. That may have come into play, but he ran against a rather weak opponent which didn't hurt.

Nixon in 1972 was another mandate president, second term, 61% of the total vote. But his mandate ended quickly with Watergate. Reagan in 1984 was next, again his second term which is not like receiving a mandate for his first term. Reagan received 59% of the total vote, but between Iran-contra and Reagan pretty much accomplishing everything he wanted during his first term. The mandate meant little to nothing.

Reagan was the last president to reach the magic 55% mark. Hillary won't come close to it. I doubt if she breaks 50%. There will be no mandate in the historical sense. On the other side of the coin, one could say Obama achieved a mandate in 2008, he won with 53% of the vote, but the Democrats had control of congress and for a while a filibuster proof senate. Promptly lost in 2010 when Obama and the Democrats were perceived as pushing their own agenda upon a people who had no want for it.

Instead of claiming a mandate, it is more important to win the senate and house than get 55% of the vote. That is unless your agenda is what the people want and you're willing and able to work with those across the aisle.

Re: If you don't vote for "X" and vote third party, it's the same as voting for "Y"

Perotista said:

The usual definition of a mandate is a presidential candidate who received 55% of the total vote or more. That is historical, although it seems anyone who wins these days always claim a mandate. But that mandate sometimes disappears rather quickly if the winner who achieved it begins to push their own agenda instead of the peoples agenda.

Eisenhower received a mandate both times he ran and used it to accomplish what he wanted. He was also smart enough to work with then senate majority leader LBJ to help him get his agenda through congress. IKE and LBJ made things pretty bipartisan.

LBJ in 1964 was the next president to achieve a mandate at the ballot box, but Vietnam eroded that so much LBJ refused to run for re-election. But a lot of political pundits puts the reason for LBJ mandate, he received 61% of the vote as being a sympathy vote as the result of JFK assassination. That may have come into play, but he ran against a rather weak opponent which didn't hurt.

Nixon in 1972 was another mandate president, second term, 61% of the total vote. But his mandate ended quickly with Watergate. Reagan in 1984 was next, again his second term which is not like receiving a mandate for his first term. Reagan received 59% of the total vote, but between Iran-contra and Reagan pretty much accomplishing everything he wanted during his first term. The mandate meant little to nothing.

Reagan was the last president to reach the magic 55% mark. Hillary won't come close to it. I doubt if she breaks 50%. There will be no mandate in the historical sense. On the other side of the coin, one could say Obama achieved a mandate in 2008, he won with 53% of the vote, but the Democrats had control of congress and for a while a filibuster proof senate. Promptly lost in 2010 when Obama and the Democrats were perceived as pushing their own agenda upon a people who had no want for it.

Instead of claiming a mandate, it is more important to win the senate and house than get 55% of the vote. That is unless your agenda is what the people want and you're willing and able to work with those across the aisle.

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton got 43% on his first presidential win and 49% on the second. I'm sincerely hoping that whoever wins this year will get less than 40%. That's why I am encouraging everyone I know to vote even if the two Democrats running disgust them. If they don't vote, one of the lesser of two weevils could get 60% of a very poor turnout. We need everyone to vote to get a winner with 35% or less.

Re: If you don't vote for "X" and vote third party, it's the same as voting for "Y"

Patrickt said:

Bill Clinton got 43% on his first presidential win and 49% on the second. I'm sincerely hoping that whoever wins this year will get less than 40%. That's why I am encouraging everyone I know to vote even if the two Democrats running disgust them. If they don't vote, one of the lesser of two weevils could get 60% of a very poor turnout. We need everyone to vote to get a winner with 35% or less.

Click to expand...

I'll do my part. Johnson has my vote.