Do we really have to go with the DNC & RNC picks?

[timothyu]

That line never gets old.

Because it was once true.


BTW a democracy gives the people choice between two opposing sides. The S of A is given choice of two sides of the same coin, both of which are funded by the same people who never lose. Time for people to remind government they are supposed to serve the people , not the lobbyists and financial backers..

 

[Nithavela]

Because it was once true.


BTW a democracy gives the people choice between two opposing sides. The S of A is given choice of two sides of the same coin, both of which are funded by the same people who never lose. Time for people to remind government they are supposed to serve the people , not the lobbyists and financial backers..

Most democracies give more than two choices.

 

[timothyu]

Most democracies give more than two choices.

True yet all we hear is right or left and the definition keeps changing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah, that's definitely true. The sad reality is, though, that there's not much that can be done about it. You could try a write-in vote for a 3rd party candidate, but don't expect it to make a difference.

Except in close races, where it benefits the major party candidate you prefer the least.

 

[KCfromNC]

If your going to challenge the choice of the party establishment, you need to have enough money to do it. We've seen how that is done...

For example, it helped in getting Bill Clinton elected.

 

[Arc F1]

The candidates lobbyists and the rich pick are ones who will do the most for them and the least for everyone else.

Ever wonder why there's no one to vote for? The multi-zillionaires own both parties and pick both candidates, and when they get in, the politicians move Trillions of dollars up the the very rich.

If you're in the part of the economic spectrum I'm in, even a small medical bill is more than I earn in a year. The money keeps getting sucked up the economic ladder.

The cost of running is why we will never get a really good person in office. We'll that and media censorship. Right now they are censoring what the president puts out. If he can't speak his mind you know they won't push an unknown persons message. It always ends up being the lesser of two evils.

 

[Albion]

A party called Unity2020 have proposed to run both Andrew Yang and Admiral McRaven and claim to have ways to get them onto the ballot.

Change.org has a petition to get them onto the ballot and people are signing it and contributing at a good rate, looks like it will reach the target before midnight, I mean in 3 hours.

Right or Left there is a good non-corrupt candidate in that pair for you and both are better than the ones the main parties are backing.

It should make little difference which is President and which is VP because they are willing to work together and the overall plan is they should reach an agreement on (hopefully) everything.

Unfortunately, it is now so late in the going that most states are past the point when a new party or even an independent candidate can legally qualify for the November ballot.

Yes, there are a handful, but that's all. Still, if it's a matter of conscience for you and you happen to live in one of these states, that would be a possibility.

 

[Albion]

But let's assume the Indy candidate is viable. 3 major candidates in each state means the chance of one winning a clear majority of a state's votes could be remote.

So that state's EVs would then go to whoever wins the plurality. Those pluralities could well be small. Is it really fair if all of a state's EVs go to a candidate who wins, let's say, only 40% of the vote?

If that's a concern, give some thought to how a direct popular vote would work out. People never seem to do that, but if the election were at all close (as with your own example of Bush v. Gore), the recounts and court challenges would go on for the better part of a year. That's one advantage to having the Electoral College instead.

 

[durangodawood]

Most states have minor party candidates on the ballot, and if your conscience says to refuse your vote to the candidates of both of the major parties, do consider voting third party.

Some people will say it's a waste of your vote, but so is voting for the candidate of whichever one of the two major parties winds up losing the election, if you think about it for a moment.

In any case, your conscience deserves not to be ignored too casually.

The purpose of voting is not for you to feel good. Its to try for the best actual outcome for the country.

Feeling good about yourself while advancing your worst choice candidate is almost childishly irresponsible. Thats what happens when you cast a spoiler vote... unless youre in a "safe" state.

I would love to see a system that removes the spoiler penalty for 3rd party voting tho. Some version of ranked choice voting. Then you could "vote your conscience" in good conscience. Thats we we should aim for.

 

[Albion]

The purpose of voting is not for you to feel good.

I don't think anyone said to vote in order "to feel good."

Following one's conscience is not a matter of doing whatever makes you feel good and doing it for that reason only. That's the case even though following one's conscience probably will also make you feel at ease with your decision.

Feeling good about yourself while advancing your worst choice candidate is almost childishly irresponsible. Thats what happens when you cast a spoiler vote... unless youre in a "safe" state.

Again, I have no idea from where this odd notion should have come from. It wouldn't seem to have been anything that was posted on this thread.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think anyone said to vote in order "to feel good."

Following one's conscience is not a matter of doing whatever makes you feel good and doing it for that reason only. That's the case even though following one's conscience probably will also make you feel at ease with your decision.


Again, I have no idea where you might have gotten this odd notion from anything posted on this thread.

What else is casting a spoiler "conscience" vote for? Its not about the country, as youve done nothing at best, and quite possibly advanced the worst candidate. Its about you and feeling good about your vote.

Look at FL 2000 for a perfect example. Nader "conscience" votes probably cost Gore the state. Result: all those conscience voters actually advanced their worst choice candidate, and a few years later hundreds of thousands dead in a giant waste of a war, which was a terrible outcome according to pretty much everyone to the left of GWB, including those same original conscience voters.

So yeah, assuaging my conscience at the cost of advancing the worst candidate is all about me and my feelings rather than the actual outcome for country. Its an unwillingness to compromise in a system thats always about compromise. No one gets the exact candidate they want. And no one can cast a meaningful vote for the exact candidate they want in our current 2 party electoral system. Like I say, I'd love to change the voting system to allow meaningful 3rd party votes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Speaking of his choice. He is supposed to announce his choice next week.

He would do well to select Liz Warren. She's the only one with the chops to take over as POTUS. However he seems to be committed to a black woman.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because it was once true.


BTW a democracy gives the people choice between two opposing sides. The S of A is given choice of two sides of the same coin, both of which are funded by the same people who never lose. Time for people to remind government they are supposed to serve the people , not the lobbyists and financial backers..

The caveat is that our form of government will only work with a responsible citizenry.

 

[Albion]

What else is casting a spoiler "conscience" vote for?

Most people who vote third party are convinced either that their candidate is the best one in the field (even if he or she has little chance of winning) or else they feel that the two-party duopoly that has governed our country for many generations is not working in our best interests or that of democracy itself.

On that basis, these voters can hardly be faulted. You yourself made spoke favorably of us changing from the current system to the "ranked voting" system that has gained some favor lately and which would be one way of breaking the stranglehold of the two party system we have now.

Look at FL 2000 for a perfect example. Nader "conscience" votes probably cost Gore the state.

And it was also argued that Pat Buchanan being on the ballot as well was what tipped the outcome...and he was at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Nader.

Result: all those conscience voters actually advanced their worst choice candidate

Not in their own eyes. In yours, perhaps, if you would have preferred Gore, but you cannot say that voting for Nader "advanced their worst choice candidate."

So yeah, assuaging my conscience at the cost of advancing the worst candidate is all about me and my feelings rather than the actual outcome for country. Its an unwillingness to compromise in a system thats always about compromise.

And yet you are asking that third party voters who are opposed to always compromising and taking the "lesser of two evils" ought themselves to compromise.

 

[Albion]

He would do well to select Liz Warren. She's the only one with the chops to take over as POTUS. However he seems to be committed to a black woman.

She may be what you say, but there's a lot of "downside" to this person that also needs to be taken account of.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

She may be what you say, but there's a lot of "downside" to this person that also needs to be taken account of.

Sure, but she would strengthen the ticket more than a black woman, imo.

 

[FenderTL5]

..the majority of US americans prefers it this way.

I tend to think that statement is untrue.
However, the parties have legally entrenched themselves, preventing grass root changes.

{edit to add}
I haven't voted for a major party candidate for president in 20 years.

 

[Albion]

I tend to think that statement is untrue.
However, the parties have legally entrenched themselves, preventing grass root changes.

This is true, and they've done it much more thoroughly than most voters think.

 

[durangodawood]

Most people who vote third party are convinced either that their candidate is the best one in the field (even if he or she has little chance of winning) or else they feel that the two-party duopoly that has governed our country for many generations is not working in our best interests or that of democracy itself.

On that basis, these voters can hardly be faulted. You yourself made spoke favorably of us changing from the current system to the "ranked voting" system that has gained some favor lately and which would be one way of breaking the stranglehold of the two party system we have now.

Picking your absolute "best candidate" is a vanity vote in our current system. In a natural 2-party game (first-past-the-post voting), which is what we have, actual best outcome requires compromise with everyone else on your binary side. As I said I'm all for changing the game.... but until then, pretending we have a different game so you can vote "conscience" is pure vanity.

And it was also argued that Pat Buchanan being on the ballot as well was what tipped the outcome...and he was at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Nader. Not in their own eyes. In yours, perhaps, if you would have preferred Gore, but you cannot say that voting for Nader "advanced their worst choice candidate."

Nader voters were left-side and would prefer D over R by large margin. And if I am wrong in this case. either way, the spoiler principle is well understood and not controversial.

And yet you are asking that third party voters who are opposed to always compromising and taking the "lesser of two evils" ought themselves to compromise.

Of course I am. Unwillingness to compromise in politics is childish. Its "give me every single thing I demand or I'll advance the worst candidate". Thats childish.

 

[Albion]

Picking your absolute "best candidate" is a vanity vote in our current system.

I can see that we have now moved far from the actual issue we were discussing.