Anybody but Obamney, PROTEST VOTE (thrid party)

[notme]

If you're doing the write in thing, there is no choice but Jay Bierce.

[myrkul]

What we need is instant run-off voting.  Then we'd be able to vote our hearts AND hedge against the greater of two evils.

So....

Wolf A's ballot reads:
 Wolf A: 1
 Wolf B: 2
 Sheep: 3

Wolf B's ballot:
 Wolf A: 2
 Wolf B: 1
 Sheep: 3

The Sheep's ballot:
 Wolf A: 3
 Wolf B: 2
 Sheep: 1

Wolf A: 1 number 1 spot, one number 2 spot, and 1 number 3 spot.
Wolf B: 1 number 1 spot, two number 2 spots, and 0 number 3 spots.
Sheep: 1 number one spot, 0 number two spots, and 2 number 3 spots.

First run:
Sheep is eliminated.

Second run:
Wolf A is eliminated.

Who picks dinner:
Wolf B.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Vote for satoshi

[Topazan]

What we need is instant run-off voting.  Then we'd be able to vote our hearts AND hedge against the greater of two evils.

So....

Wolf A's ballot reads:
 Wolf A: 1
 Wolf B: 2
 Sheep: 3

Wolf B's ballot:
 Wolf A: 2
 Wolf B: 1
 Sheep: 3

The Sheep's ballot:
 Wolf A: 3
 Wolf B: 2
 Sheep: 1

Wolf A: 1 number 1 spot, one number 2 spot, and 1 number 3 spot.
Wolf B: 1 number 1 spot, two number 2 spots, and 0 number 3 spots.
Sheep: 1 number one spot, 0 number two spots, and 2 number 3 spots.

First run:
Sheep is eliminated.

Second run:
Wolf A is eliminated.

Who picks dinner:
Wolf B.

I never claimed that it would solve the fundamental problems with democracy, just that it would weaken the hold of the two party system.

[myrkul]

I never claimed that it would solve the fundamental problems with democracy, just that it would weaken the hold of the two party system.

Why polish the doorknobs on the Titanic?

[Topazan]

Does that metaphor mean you expect the US government to collapse in the near future?  Then why even have this conversation?

[myrkul]

Does that metaphor mean you expect the US government to collapse in the near future?  Then why even have this conversation?

You got me there. I'm of the opinion that voting, for any candidate, just encourages them to keep holding elections.

[JMAHH]

The thrid party? Got a manifest?

[ribuck]

Voting for a third party says "I support this broken and corrupt system and this is who I want to be in charge".

Not voting says "I don't support this broken and corrupt system".

[myrkul]

Voting for a third party says "I support this broken and corrupt system and this is who I want to be in charge".

Not voting says "I don't support this broken and corrupt system".

This +9000.

[FreeMoney]

 

You know how the media gets all hot and bothered about voter turnout? It's because it legitimizes the system all their friends control. If some tiny minority went and picked themselves a leader it would be clear that he's just their leader, getting everyone involved keeps up the illusion that we all consent to the system. I don't.

I'm not saying that voting actually makes you responsible for following their terrible laws. If you think it can protect you, go for it. Maybe this time you'll actually tip the scales in the "should we rape the ladies in the lifeboat" political hypothetical. After you lose the rape vote again you can still try to drown the bastards.

[myrkul]

You know how the media gets all hot and bothered about voter turnout? It's because it legitimizes the system all their friends control. If some tiny minority went and picked themselves a leader it would be clear that he's just their leader, getting everyone involved keeps up the illusion that we all consent to the system. I don't.

But the media does not report the voter turnout, they report the percentage of votes cast. And whoever wins, if people just stay home rater than voting third party, the winner will say "I got over 50% of the vote so I have a MANDATE to do whatever the fuck I want". When they only get a plurality of votes instead of a majority they can't say that as much. (Not that it really affects what they do, just how it is percieved)

One of these people is wrong. I'm willing to bet it's not FreeMoney.

[hashman]

[ShireSilver]

You know how the media gets all hot and bothered about voter turnout? It's because it legitimizes the system all their friends control. If some tiny minority went and picked themselves a leader it would be clear that he's just their leader, getting everyone involved keeps up the illusion that we all consent to the system. I don't.

But the media does not report the voter turnout, they report the percentage of votes cast. And whoever wins, if people just stay home rater than voting third party, the winner will say "I got over 50% of the vote so I have a MANDATE to do whatever the fuck I want". When they only get a plurality of votes instead of a majority they can't say that as much. (Not that it really affects what they do, just how it is percieved)

One of these people is wrong. I'm willing to bet it's not FreeMoney.

In one town I lived in, the pro government school folks tried to get passed a huge expansion of the existing school. The voters turned it down. They waited the absolute minimum time required by law to put it on the ballot again, only this time the vote was scheduled for February. (This was in Minnesota.) They knew that most of the older folks on fixed incomes would be too afraid to go out to vote, plus it was the only thing on the ballot so most voters wouldn't bother. Only 14% of registered voters bothered to vote, and it just barely passed. It was still seen as legitimate even though less than 8% of registered voters voted in favor, and that's less than 5% of the population.

The idea that people will stop supporting government when enough people stop voting seems like fail to me.

[Explodicle]

Waste of time. Third-parties have no chance of winning, so voting for them is pointless. Rather than wasting ~30 minutes voting, use that time to educate people about libertarianism (or whatever).

Then do I ever have the deal for you! Let's bet on it. If any third-party candidate wins, you pay me 100 BTC. If Democrats/Republicans win, then I pay you 0.0001 BTC. Since you're not just being hyperbolic to promote a political argument, it's practically free money!

Voting for a third party says "I support this broken and corrupt system and this is who I want to be in charge".

Not voting says "I don't support this broken and corrupt system".

Do you honestly think a government led by Gary Johnson would be as corrupt or broken? Ask a dozen random people if they interpret low voter turnout as protest or apathy. You can send a clear message against corruption and inefficiency by voting for someone who will fight against them.

[theymos]

Then do I ever have the deal for you! Let's bet on it. If any third-party candidate wins, you pay me 100 BTC. If Democrats/Republicans win, then I pay you 0.0001 BTC. Since you're not just being hyperbolic to promote a political argument, it's practically free money!

It is free money, but such a small amount isn't worth my time. I'll do a bet of my 1000 BTC to your 2 BTC.

[Explodicle]

Then do I ever have the deal for you! Let's bet on it. If any third-party candidate wins, you pay me 100 BTC. If Democrats/Republicans win, then I pay you 0.0001 BTC. Since you're not just being hyperbolic to promote a political argument, it's practically free money!

It is free money, but such a small amount isn't worth my time. I'll do a bet of my 1000 BTC to your 2 BTC.

So you're so rich that simply posting a receiving address is worth a whopping 2 BTC to you, but you're so poor that you can't offer more than 1000 BTC? Why the higher odds all of a sudden? To make things easy, I'll even send you my 0.0001 BTC immediately yet patiently wait for you to save 100 BTC in the unlikely event that I win.

Assuming you agree that there IS a nonzero chance that a third party will win (like they have in the past), then increasing that chance is potentially worthwhile.
Value of voting = (expected benefit if win) x (change in chance to win) - (cost of voting)
Costs are gas money, waiting in line, etc.
Personally I'd put a HUGE value on removing the Republicrats from power, so even if the odds are very low it's worth doing.

[beetlebrow]

To quote: “If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.”

[ribuck]

Voting for a third party says "I support this broken and corrupt system and this is who I want to be in charge".

Not voting says "I don't support this broken and corrupt system".

Do you honestly think a government led by Gary Johnson would be as corrupt or broken?

I'm not an American, and I don't know much about Gary Johnson. But a quick look at his policy page reveals plenty of weasel words. For example, he calls for an end to "bloated stimulus programs and unnecessary farm subsidies". No problem then with stimulus programs that are not too bloated, or with farm subsidies that are "necessary"? And he wants to eliminate "needless barriers to free trade", which suggests that some barriers to free trade are "needed".

Also, campaign promises are not legally binding and the historical track record of elected candidates is not good.

And he doesn't seem to have a problem with accepting a comfortable salary extracted under threat of force from his constituents. Just sayin'.

[myrkul]

Voting for a third party says "I support this broken and corrupt system and this is who I want to be in charge".

Not voting says "I don't support this broken and corrupt system".

Do you honestly think a government led by Gary Johnson would be as corrupt or broken?

I'm not an American, and I don't know much about Gary Johnson. But a quick look at his policy page reveals plenty of weasel words. For example, he calls for an end to "bloated stimulus programs and unnecessary farm subsidies". No problem then with stimulus programs that are not too bloated, or with farm subsidies that are "necessary"? And he wants to eliminate "needless barriers to free trade", which suggests that some barriers to free trade are "needed".

Also, campaign promises are not legally binding and the historical track record of elected candidates is not good.

And he doesn't seem to have a problem with accepting a comfortable salary extracted under threat of force from his constituents. Just sayin'.

I think he meant to imply that all such barriers and subsidies and such are unnecessary, but yeah, I don't trust him with the ring, either.