Jill Stein 2016

[BananaCucho]

This November instead of voting between the lesser of two shitlords, consider voting green.

As more people learn about Jill, the higher she climbs in the polls. If she hits 15% she will be allowed into the debates with the other two bozos.

http://i67.tinypic.com/rlhwu9.png

[BananaCucho]

Relevant info:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-campaign-election-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-green-party-jill-stein-progressives-liberal-213972

http://www.jill2016.com/

[Unknown1234]

Woot! Canadian!

[BananaCucho]

Woot! Canadian!

Our neighborinos to the North are more than welcome to engage in this discussion

[deathworlds]

I don't agree with the green party.

[Shifty]

lol the US are fucked

[BananaCucho]

I don't agree with the green party.

Have you looked into Gary Johnson? I don't agree with Libertarians but he is preferable to Trump, so vote him instead of Trump pls

[BananaCucho]

lol the US are fucked

Yes :(

[Unknown1234]

Our neighborinos to the North are more than welcome to engage in this discussion

Wait....

[Unknown1234]

Banana why aren't you president?

[BananaCucho]

Wait....

[Message deleted]

[Unknown1234]

[Message deleted]

Yeah I got that.

[BananaCucho]

Banana why aren't you president?

The racists don't want a brown president (looking at you, Trumpees)

[Kovath]

Have you looked into Gary Johnson? I don't agree with Libertarians but he is preferable to Trump, so vote him instead of Trump pls

I second this point.

[Unknown1234]

The racists don't want a brown president (looking at you, Trumpees)

BananaCucho

[Unknown1234]

But in all seriousness, I agree with you for the most part.

[BananaCucho]

http://i66.tinypic.com/256e6f5.jpg

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

trump #1

[Unknown1234]

trump #1

Eat a dick, asshole.

[Unknown1234]

Did I nail it?

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Eat a dick, asshole.

got em coach.

[Unknown1234]

got em coach.

:D

[BananaCucho]

I am so proud right now

[Unknown1234]

Sorry Banana I think I'm killing your thread.

[Yukitaka Oni]

vote 4 trump. Make USA great again >)o.o)v
Vote 4 green party, make canada green again v(o.o(<

[BananaCucho]

Sorry Banana I think I'm killing your thread.

All publicity is good publicity mate.

[Kovath]

All publicity is good publicity mate.

Is it really, though?

[BananaCucho]

Is it really, though?

Yes.

Also,

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13528999_10206398265376826_2567110798734800746_n.j pg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=70c2e4b05756c62e0a342b967ac1dc03&oe=57FB60AB

[BananaCucho]

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13537550_717968181693996_7931535428517261146_n.jpg ?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=a1ccae0df5f3e5216bb31f21f9a81b89&oe=57EEDE56

[deathworlds]

Have you looked into Gary Johnson? I don't agree with Libertarians but he is preferable to Trump, so vote him instead of Trump pls

He's okay, his views on education disgust me, but he's certainly more preferable than any sort of Republican.

[BananaCucho]

He's okay, his views on education disgust me but he's certainly more preferable than any sort of Republican.

Get it done. Unless you want President Trump or President Clinton

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13507159_10208058261347888_6280912471568534087_n.j pg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=9d04f22c5064cdca04e7d1a536865ff4&oe=58060DEB

[BananaCucho]

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13521926_10209095912810870_2457769809610425622_n.j pg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=cd047cf717e8049b2eeb872964b9add9&oe=5834D704

[ThePaladin]

You know ensuring the lesser evil who doesn't immediately cause ww3

is better than voting in the greater evil who is liable to or doing an inaction that would cause him (HMMM PRONOUN I WONDER) to get into power.

(hyperbole)

[ThePaladin]

All publicity is good publicity mate.

“good publicity is preferable to bad, but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all. Controversy, in short, sells.”
― Donald J. Trump (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/676.Donald_J_Trump), Trump: The Art of the Deal (https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1224415)

The conspiracies.....

[BananaCucho]

You know ensuring the lesser evil who doesn't immediately cause ww3

is better than voting in the greater evil who is liable to or doing an inaction that would cause him (HMMM PRONOUN I WONDER) to get into power.

(hyperbole)

This same mentality is why election after election undesirable candidates are elected.

A majority of Americans believe a third party is needed so why are all of those people voting for the same garbage?

[ThePaladin]

This same mentality is why election after election undesirable candidates are elected.

A majority of Americans believe a third party is needed so why are all of those people voting for the same garbage?

Because lesser evils are still a net gain.

Ultimately either a straight out breaking point will be reached in which both parties implode on themselves or the system itself will be destroyed in all likelihood.

If you want to attempt to get a third party in you are probably better off trying to win a decent number of congressional seats before aiming for the presidency.

I agree with you that both parties are nearly the same since the American Political Spectrum is so small and continuously shrunk to the point that even a new-dealer is considered to be a socialist and radical.


In order to get a third party in straight to the presidency, at this point you would probably have to do a mass-movement not slowly move up in percentage of vote over a series of elections.

[ThePaladin]

I mean personally on some issues such as Donald Trump wanting to abandon S Korea and become friendlier with N Korea to be just the most ludicrous positions, I've seen in a while though.

[BananaCucho]

Because lesser evils are still a net gain.

Ultimately either a straight out breaking point will be reached in which both parties implode on themselves or the system itself will be destroyed in all likelihood.

If you want to attempt to get a third party in, you are probably better off trying to win a decent number of congressional seats before aiming for the presidency.

I agree with you that both parties are nearly the same since the American Political Spectrum is so small and continuously shrunk to the point that even a new-dealer is considered to be a socialist and radical.

Considering that both Trump and Clinton's unfavorable ratings are so high, and polling is showing that an unprecedented number of Americans don't want either of them, this is the perfect year for a breakout candidate to surprise the two parties.

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/25/wheres_ralph_nader_when_you_need_him_half_of_voter s_would_consider_a_third_party_presidential_candid ate/

[ThePaladin]

Considering that both Trump and Clinton's unfavorable ratings are so high, and polling is showing that an unprecedented number of Americans don't want either of them, this is the perfect year for a breakout candidate to surprise the two parties.

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/25/wheres_ralph_nader_when_you_need_him_half_of_voter s_would_consider_a_third_party_presidential_candid ate/

The problem is there its a little late-game to be pushing for a mass-movement.

It's possible but extremely difficult and the amount of effort you would actually need is quite substantial.
Say if there were provisions made a year or two in advance in case of this outcome of TrumpVClinton, you probably could do it. But as a spur of the moment thing, trying to hit critical mass in this time as well as getting the participation needed would be very difficult.

Therefore I'm fine with playing the long-game with a lesser evil for the current time.
I'm not an accelerationist and find that risking a shorter-game could potentially have unforeseen consequences.

[ThePaladin]

"Nearly half, 47 percent, of registered American voters would consider a third-party candidate if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the major party nominees, according to a new NBC/WSJ poll (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726)."







The 47% statistic doesn't tell us too much. Given that that poll appears to be just a basic telephone-based with only 1000people(not stated if regional or national either). We can't really infer to much. If anything what would occur if people actually did follow through in that and the percentage is accurate(both of which I doubt), I doubt all of them are liberal leaning and would vote for green, if anything there could also be a move towards the Libertarian party.

Nor Do I see that still being enough to win electoral votes even to cause one candidate to get <50% given the winner take all system in place in most.

[BananaCucho]

"Nearly half, 47 percent, of registered American voters would consider a third-party candidate if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the major party nominees, according to a new NBC/WSJ poll (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726)."







The 47% statistic doesn't tell us too much. Given that that poll appears to be just a basic telephone-based with only 1000people(not stated if regional or national either). We can't really infer to much. If anything what would occur if people actually did follow through in that and the percentage is accurate(both of which I doubt), I doubt all of them are liberal leaning and would vote for green, if anything there could also be a move towards the Libertarian party.

Nor Do I see that still being enough to win electoral votes even to cause one candidate to get <50% given the winner take all system in place in most.

All it takes is 15% to get into the debates. Stein is halfway there in some polls.

Once into the debates and people see there are other options its a game changer.

[ThePaladin]

All it takes is 15% to get into the debates. Stein is halfway there in some polls.

Once into the debates and people see there are other options its a game changer.

Not necessarily.

I would say most people are aware of third parties as is even without their debate. And I doubt more-so that there are those who say and will actively act against the current parties who also don't know about third parties and a basic premise of positions such as green being left and less-authoritative and libertarian being right and less-authoritative than the current parties.

It also wouldn't be the first time a third party was in a debate, the current spectrum establishment or whatever you want to call it easily defeats them still.

". In 1980, Jimmy Carter strongly opposed the inclusion of independent candidate John Anderson, who had polled as high as 26 percent, in the debates. (Anderson would ultimately finish with less than 7 percent of the vote.) The League decided to include Anderson anyway, prompting Carter to drop out of the debates and leaving Anderson alone to debate Ronald Reagan. In 1984, the League held a press conference lambasting Reagan and Walter Mondale for rejecting dozens of potential debate moderators."

There is also much more than just 15% threshold

In addition to meeting the 15 percent threshold "as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations," the CPD mandates that candidates be Constitutionally eligible to be president and be on the ballot in enough states that it is mathematically possible to win the presidency.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-the-debates-unfairly-shut-out-third-parties/2/

[BananaCucho]

The point is Paladin, while Clinton doesn't use the same hateful rhetoric Trump employs, I refuse to vote for someone I disgree with and who would be bad for the country.

https://scontent.fsnc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13516343_10208050536834780_3418799556456754164_n.j pg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=2e0bb7c25f68a07cd107694d865985de&oe=57F85369

[ThePaladin]

I'm not arguing that a third party candidate wouldn't be a good thing to have in office.

I just feel that if we were to rush straight to presidency; it's far too late for that to occur, The third partys and their candidates(or anyone else running) should have made a very encompassing plan rather than just hoping for votes and appealing to dissatisified voters since clearly that approach hasn't work.

It would take a lot of funds and the candidates being decided much earlier and actively campaigning much early(probably would have to be as early as start of traditional party primaries). As well as a very large grassroots in addition to it.

Given the current state of affairs the most likely thing that would convince people to vote third parties would be to win either seats at the state or congressional level and gain enough to force both parties to hear them on issues in order to gain votes to pass legislation.

If you were to win let's say 10% of either or both houses of congress. That would prove to the electorate that they are viable for presidential as well and potentially cause enough traction to hit critical mass by the next presidential election.

[Cryptonic]

I'd vote Stein if I could vote.
Fuck Clinton Foundation

[ThePaladin]

The point is Paladin, while Clinton doesn't use the same hateful rhetoric Trump employs, I refuse to vote for someone I disgree with and who would be bad for the country.

https://scontent.fsnc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13516343_10208050536834780_3418799556456754164_n.j pg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=2e0bb7c25f68a07cd107694d865985de&oe=57F85369

Drone strikes are bad.

You know what else is bad? Abandoning S Korea and Becoming friends with N Korea, literally the worst dictatorship in the world.

You know what else is bad? Letting 10% of the syrian population be killed and helping the murderer.


"Sticking it to the man" doesn't actually help anything if there isn't a carefully though out process of what will we gain through this specific action rather than "sticking it to the man"

I would say most Brexit leave voters thought that way and a decent percentage(not saying all or even most) didn't realize the full repercussions given some of the comments I've seen by voters post-referendum.

[ThePaladin]

When a person actively says.


Let's implement a system of internet censorship like China's Great Firewall solely to keep terrorist activity out.

I find that very disturbing. And one of the most harmful outcomes including beyond the United States if it's implemented[not a stretch given enough of a knee-jerk reaction by the populace if a few more major terrorist attacks occurred on US soil]

[Cryptonic]

Clinton is good if you want another 4 years of the same thing before handing WH to Republicans lol.

[BananaCucho]

Drone strikes are bad.

You know what else is bad? Abandoning S Korea and Becoming friends with N Korea, literally the worst dictatorship in the world.

You know what else is bad? Letting 10% of the syrian population be killed and helping the murderer.


"Sticking it to the man" doesn't actually help anything if there isn't a carefully though out process of what will we gain through this specific action rather than "sticking it to the man"

I would say most Brexit leave voters thought that way and a decent percentage(not saying all or even most) didn't realize the full repercussions given some of the comments I've seen by voters post-referendum.

So what I'm hearing is 4 awful years of Trump, people learn their lessons, even more 3rd party votes next time. Cool story.

[BananaCucho]

I'd vote Stein if I could vote.
Fuck Clinton Foundation

Your support is appreciated, eh!

[ThePaladin]

So what I'm hearing is 4 awful years of Trump, people learn their lessons, even more 3rd party votes next time. Cool story.

I'm an anarchist btw :P , so personally my best outcome is to establish a confederatic like system where most decisions are decided at local level, my end goal is in no way to have more parties in the current system.

That's an accelerationist mindset(if we accelerate bad stuff hapenning then surely people will act aginst it sooner aswell)

The problem with that is that if certain measures are taken while we decided to accelerate(such as internet censorship) we may have actually made it more difficult to start any sort of movement or hit critical mass;
thereby causing this to either go on longer than it would have previous
or causing such a catastrophic outcome because we thought that surely it would never get THAT bad by allowing the greater evil to gain more power and thereby give his supporters more power aswell.

[ThePaladin]

Your support is appreciated, eh!

Hi, canadian

:fb:

[BananaCucho]

I'm an anarchist btw :P

That's an accelerationist mindset(if we accelerate bad stuff hapenning then surely people will act aginst it sooner aswell)

The problem with that is that if certain measures are taken while we decided to accelerate(such as internet censorship) we may have actually made it more difficult to start any sort of movement or hit critical mass;
thereby causing this to either go on longer than it would have previous
or causing such a catastrophic outcome because we thought that surely it would never get THAT bad by allowing the greater evil to gain more power and thereby give his supporters more power aswell.

And if things get out of hand Congress will counterbalance him. And then after four years, bye bye.

I went through eight years of shit with Bush. Four years of shit with Trump isn't going to scare me into voting for four years of shit with Clinton.

[BananaCucho]

I refuse to vote based on fear.

[ThePaladin]

I refuse to vote based on fear.


Just as an example[SUPER EXTREME]

If there are two candidates.

One says they want to buildup a nuclear arsenal, become isolationist.
The other says they want to invade an take over Mexico and Annex Canada and make The Union of American States.

Do you consider voting the lesser based on fear and if so is fear necessarily a bad thing? Fear is what prevented us from going to or risking nuclear war in the cold war.

Do you vote for the lesser but then try to make plans, provisions, and establish a movement so that you have already hit critical mass while the lesser is in power so that shortly you can put either in a much lesser evil or a neutral/good within the next or next few cycles?

Do you put all your faith in the system(checks and balances) that you admit is corrupt and let the greater get into power?

[Cryptonic]

Just as an example[SUPER EXTREME]

If there are two candidates.

One says they want to buildup a nuclear arsenal, become isolationist.
The other says they want to invade an take over Mexico and Annex Canada and make The Union of American States.

Do you consider voting the lesser based on fear and if so is fear necessarily a bad thing? Fear is what prevented us from going to or risking nuclear war in the cold war.

Do you vote for the lesser but then try to make plans, provisions, and establish a movement so that you have already hit critical mass while the lesser is in power so that shortly you can put either in a much lesser evil or a neutral/good within the next or next few cycles?

Do you put all your faith in the system(checks and balances) that you admit is corrupt and let the greater get into power?


Isn't this why the two-party system is shit?

[ThePaladin]

Isn't this why the two-party system is shit?

It is terrible but it's what we got and its America's current choices for presidency[the 2parties not the example] unlesss somehow a third party hits critical mass out of nowhere.

IMO, It's not particularly better with having 4 or more major parties if the spectrum is still small.

The spectrum determines the decisions made.

The spectrum is mostly decided by the populaces actions to certain things or inaction.

Voting in a third party candidate doesn't actually alter the spectrum(not in as much as I would consider an actual change) at least.

[BananaCucho]

It is terrible but it's what we got and its America's current choices for presidency unlesss somehow a third party hits critical mass out of nowhere.

/Point of the thread

[ThePaladin]

/Point of the thread

I already stated why this isn't happening.

There needed to be a plan and a VERY active movement with a different approach than the current third party approach much earlier for this to occur.

You don't just magically hit critical mass without a ridiculous amount of effort.

Hitting it is the hard part.

After you hit it the first major hurdle is past.

[BananaCucho]

I already stated why this isn't happening.

There needed to be a plan and a VERY active movement with a different approach than the current third party approach much earlier for this to occur.

You don't just magically hit critical mass without a ridiculous amount of effort.

Hitting it is the hard part.

After you hit it the first major hurdle is past.

And this attitude of "its not going to happen" and "this person isn't as bad as the other" is exactly why the two parties have maintained control.

You're going to go in circles with this aren't you?

[ThePaladin]

And this attitude of "its not going to happen" and "this person isn't as bad as the other" is exactly why the two parties have maintained control.

You're going to go in circles with this aren't you?

It can happen

The movement that the 3rd parties are trying to do now is happening way too late.

They should've already had candidates picked a year ahead and started a massive funded and grassroots campaign since the begining of the primaries if they are serious about taking the presidency. Currently they appear to be content with attempting a slow progression. If that's their goal, then they will never reach the presidency till they make that what they are content with and their goal.


Also basically all 3rd parties are still within a political spectrum that I consider "bad", nor do I see any third parties as actually expanding the current political spectrum.

[Brendan]

Or u could do the American thing and not vote :)

[ThePaladin]

Or u could do the American thing and not vote :)

You mean vote Anarchist

:P

[BananaCucho]

It can happen

The movement that the 3rd parties are trying to do now is happening way too late.

They should've already had candidates picked a year ahead and started a massive funded and grassroots campaign since the begining of the primaries if they are serious about taking the presidency. Currently they appear to be content with attempting a slow progression. If that's their goal, then they will never reach the presidency till they make that what they are content with and their goal.


Also basically all 3rd parties are still within a political spectrum that I consider "bad", nor do I see any third parties as actually expanding the current political spectrum.

You're repeating yourself.

[BananaCucho]

Or u could do the American thing and not vote :)

Stein is for nationwide legalization of recreational marijuana. Vote!

[ThePaladin]

You're repeating yourself.

Because you said I was saying this

"And this attitude of "its not going to happen" and "this person isn't as bad as the other" is exactly why the two parties have maintained control.

You're going to go in circles with this aren't you?"

I am not saying it can't happen.

I'm saying that given what current third parties leaders are content with. They lack the drive to make it happen.

If I am running in a race and almost know for a fact that I can't get 1st. What should I aim for?

Well I should still aim for first if I want to even get that small chance of winning.

I don't aim for and be content with 3rd.

[ThePaladin]

Stein is for nationwide legalization of recreational marijuana. Vote!

Isn't Gary Johnson also for that?

[BananaCucho]

Isn't Gary Johnson also for that?

Yes. See my response to DW.

[BananaCucho]

Because you said I was saying this

"And this attitude of "its not going to happen" and "this person isn't as bad as the other" is exactly why the two parties have maintained control.

You're going to go in circles with this aren't you?"

I am not saying it can't happen.

I'm saying that given what current third parties leaders are content with. They lack the drive to make it happen.

If I am running in a race and almost know for a fact that I can't get 1st. What should I aim for?

Well I should still aim for first if I want to even get that small chance of winning.

I don't aim for and be content with 3rd.

You're still repeating yourself and its really boring. This isn't even mafia, relax with the wallposts

[Brendan]

Stein is for nationwide legalization of recreational marijuana. Vote!

There is a literal 0% chance of her getting elected. Both candidates would have to die to give her a chance at winning the election.

[ThePaladin]

Yes. See my response to DW.

Why'd you tell DW to vote him instead of trump.

How do you know DW doesn't prefer clinton over trump lol.

:P

[BananaCucho]

There is a literal 0% chance of her getting elected. Both candidates would have to die to give her a chance at winning the election.

Your vote being a number towards someone who isn't Trump or Clinton makes more of a difference than not voting. This is a process, of course the likelihood of a third party candidate winning is low, but increased awareness and rebellion against the two party system opens up doors later on.

Voting for no one literally does nothing

[BananaCucho]

Why'd you tell DW to vote him instead of trump.

How do you know DW doesn't prefer clinton over trump lol.

:P

Clinton is a piece of shit candidate. I wouldn't want him to vote for her.

[ThePaladin]

There is a literal 0% chance of her getting elected. Both candidates would have to die to give her a chance at winning the election.

The important thing is to concede defeat when you don't have critical mass and the time has come (unless its literally life vs death, end of the world vs world stays alive) and plan for next time.

But in the meantime recognize that given two choices no matter how close there are differences.

And those differences make one naturally a better choice and a net gain over the other.

Banana if it was Hirohito vs Mussolini vs Hitler, wouldn't you say voting for the lesser one of these choices is a much better option than trying to get the guy who is nowhere near critical mass into office and thereby risking or letting in the worst possible evil?

[BananaCucho]

The important thing is to concede defeat when you don't have critical mass and the time has come (unless its literally life vs death, end of the world vs world stays alive) and plan for next time.

But in the meantime recognize that given two choices no matter how close there are differences.

And those differences make one naturally a better choice and a net gain over the other.

Banana if it was Hirohito vs Mussolini vs Hitler, wouldn't you say voting for the lesser one of these choices is a much better option than trying to get the guy who is nowhere near critical mass into office and thereby risking or letting in the worst possible evil?

We have a system in place that wouldn't allow Trump Hitler to do half the shit he wants to.

Trump is a product of a bigger problem which is conservative hatred and bigotry

That hatred and bigotry is not going to be an emperor.

[ThePaladin]

We have a system in place that wouldn't allow Trump Hitler to do half the shit he wants to.

Trump is a product of a bigger problem which is conservative hatred and bigotry

That hatred and bigotry is not going to be an emperor.

They literally said that avout hitler

The point is you give their supporters power which cause a feedback loop

[Brendan]

Your vote being a number towards someone who isn't Trump or Clinton makes more of a difference than not voting. This is a process, of course the likelihood of a third party candidate winning is low, but increased awareness and rebellion against the two party system opens up doors later on.

Voting for no one literally does nothing

I'd rather vote for Hillary than a 3rd party candidate that could allow Trump to win.

[ThePaladin]

Do you try to power something that requires 1000w with 500w

No
You wait till you get enough watts to power it

[ThePaladin]

And if you do try it blows up in your face

[BananaCucho]

I'd rather vote for Hillary than a 3rd party candidate that could allow Trump to win.

Then why did you suggest not voting lol

[BananaCucho]

Do you try to power something that requires 1000w with 500w

No
You wait till you get enough watts to power it

Dumb analogy. Support for the green or libertarian parties won't grow by voting for or supporting the lesser of two evils

[Cryptonic]

It is terrible but it's what we got and its America's current choices for presidency[the 2parties not the example] unlesss somehow a third party hits critical mass out of nowhere.

IMO, It's not particularly better with having 4 or more major parties if the spectrum is still small.

The spectrum determines the decisions made.

The spectrum is mostly decided by the populaces actions to certain things or inaction.

Voting in a third party candidate doesn't actually alter the spectrum(not in as much as I would consider an actual change) at least.

A change isn't made in a day. Not voting for someone because they won't get elected is not how democracy works.

[BananaCucho]

A change isn't made in a day. Not voting for someone because they won't get elected is not how democracy works.

This man gets it

[Orpz]

The racists don't want a brown president (looking at you, Trumpees)

Damn Trumpkins...


Clinton is good if you want another 4 years of the same thing before handing WH to Republicans lol.

I wouldn't mind 4 years of the same thing, but Clinton is literally the most unlikable person the Democrats could have shilled for, other than that guy who tried to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder. If only Bernard was as charismatic as Trudeau, this election would have been over.

[Mugy]

That's a terrible idea, you'll never get a third party until you get rid of that abomination called the electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect


A change isn't made in a day. Not voting for someone because they won't get elected is not how democracy works.

That ignores the reality of terrible voting systems.


Dumb analogy. Support for the green or libertarian parties won't grow by voting for or supporting the lesser of two evils

The reality is that unless you can spotaneously get all democrat voters to change to greens in just a few elections(which isn't happening lmao), it's not gonna work, and you're just going to put the the greater of two evils into office instead of the lesser.

It's not cynical thinking, it's mathematics of terrible voting systems.

[ThePaladin]

That's a terrible idea, you'll never get a third party until you get rid of that abomination called the electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect



That ignores the reality of terrible voting systems.



The reality is that unless you can spotaneously get all democrat voters to change to greens in just a few elections(which isn't happening lmao), it's not gonna work, and you're just going to put the the greater of two evils into office instead of the lesser.

It's not cynical thinking, it's mathematics of terrible voting systems.

If only lessig stayed in the democratic primary :(

[ThePaladin]

A change isn't made in a day. Not voting for someone because they won't get elected is not how democracy works.

Voting for the lesser evil instead of voting for a person you can guarantee based on the commitments to vote a guy not even being 25% instead of the greater evil is how democracy works. Votes that don't get the guy in mean the equivalent of nothing by definition of majority-wins.

[Brendan]

Then why did you suggest not voting lol

I didn't. I just made a point.


That's a terrible idea, you'll never get a third party until you get rid of that abomination called the electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect



That ignores the reality of terrible voting systems.



The reality is that unless you can spotaneously get all democrat voters to change to greens in just a few elections(which isn't happening lmao), it's not gonna work, and you're just going to put the the greater of two evils into office instead of the lesser.

It's not cynical thinking, it's mathematics of terrible voting systems.

this is the reality

[ThePaladin]

If you are voting third party for president you may as well vote this guy(you'd still show that third parties are a thing) and you'd have the same odds of success

http://i.imgur.com/0x0TQgO.jpg

If anything it would make more people realize, hey if this guy can get a lot of votes then some of these other guys can too

:)


http://i.imgur.com/FJheL5t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/wQ74nPG.jpg

[Cryptonic]

If you are voting third party for president you may as well vote this guy(you'd still show that third parties are a thing) and you'd have the same odds of success

http://i.imgur.com/0x0TQgO.jpg

If anything it would make more people realize, hey if this guy can get a lot of votes then some of these other guys can too

:)


http://i.imgur.com/FJheL5t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/wQ74nPG.jpg


Your logic is terrible, and you're part of the problem with the American electoral process

[Cryptonic]

It's retarded that the elected needs a majority to win. Makes it a crooked system.

[MattZed]

*Gary Johnson 2016

FTFY.

[BananaCucho]

That's a terrible idea, you'll never get a third party until you get rid of that abomination called the electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect



That ignores the reality of terrible voting systems.



The reality is that unless you can spotaneously get all democrat voters to change to greens in just a few elections(which isn't happening lmao), it's not gonna work, and you're just going to put the the greater of two evils into office instead of the lesser.

It's not cynical thinking, it's mathematics of terrible voting systems.

You do realize that over 40% of the electorate is independent right?

[Mesk514]

Marijuana cigarettes will now be sold in Canada legally, whatever this thread is about is irrelevant because Canada is x10 better.

[ThePaladin]

You do realize that over 40% of the electorate is independent right?

You do realize just because someone isn't registered with a party that doesn't mean they won't vote them or even don't like them right?

You do realize that the people who are the people who vote on the electoral college are by definition establishment and aren't even required to care about how you vote(They've voted against the people before, they've even voted for non-runners before).


https://lessig2016.us/

[BananaCucho]

You do realize just because someone isn't registered with a party that doesn't mean they won't vote them or even don't like them right?

You do realize that the people who are the people who vote on the electoral college are by definition establishment and aren't even required to care about how you vote(They've voted against the people before, they've even voted for non-runners before).


https://lessig2016.us/

I was responding to his "all of the Democrats would have to vote green" when they don't even have a large portion of the electorate

[ThePaladin]

I was responding to his "all of the Democrats would have to vote green" when they don't even have a large portion of the electorate

Ahh Sorry.

[Iced_Monopoly]

So im not entirely sure on how American politics operate, but here in Australia we had a similar debate some many years ago. Essentially the long standing liberal government was voted out and replaced by the other large party, the labour party, which managed to upset everyone just as much as the liberals. Given we also operate almost entirely on a two party basis, there were calls to vote for independents to try to shift the voting system away from something so binary. As a result, for many elections now, our country has been forming minority governments because neither of the big parties have been able to get enough seats. Which has just turned into the select few independents who manage to get voted in being able to demand what ever they want from the bigger of the two main parties in exchange for their votes. So we still end up with one party getting what they want, and then some spoiled ass politicians who can hold the country for ransom.

Even after the election we just held, the number of votes for the 2 main parties versus the independents show that they will never actually have a chance to form a government of their own, and instead we seem to be doing more damage by voting them in. We either dont pass any legislation, or we pass it at a cost. Like I said, im not sure how american politics operate, so i dont know if its comparable, but voting independents or third parties doesnt work (here). The arguement made previously that over time and in future elections it might be possible to break the 2 party system, but I dont see that happening for at least several generations. Our only hope here is that both big parties hate the youth, universities are being deregulated, our fibre optic network got shit on, referendum on gay marriage got scrapped, government assistance to youth got chopped, and cost of living is through the roof. You might think our independents would capitilise on this, but one of them just won her seat this election, Pauline Hanson, Australias trump; except she doesnt just hate muslims and immigrants, she hates every ethnicity but caucasions, and wants everyone else to get out of 'our' country. Nowhere is safe, time to enlist to ship to mars.

[ThePaladin]

So im not entirely sure on how American politics operate, but here in Australia we had a similar debate some many years ago. Essentially the long standing liberal government was voted out and replaced by the other large party, the labour party, which managed to upset everyone just as much as the liberals. Given we also operate almost entirely on a two party basis, there were calls to vote for independents to try to shift the voting system away from something so binary. As a result, for many elections now, our country has been forming minority governments because neither of the big parties have been able to get enough seats. Which has just turned into the select few independents who manage to get voted in being able to demand what ever they want from the bigger of the two main parties in exchange for their votes. So we still end up with one party getting what they want, and then some spoiled ass politicians who can hold the country for ransom.

Even after the election we just held, the number of votes for the 2 main parties versus the independents show that they will never actually have a chance to form a government of their own, and instead we seem to be doing more damage by voting them in. We either dont pass any legislation, or we pass it at a cost. Like I said, im not sure how american politics operate, so i dont know if its comparable, but voting independents or third parties doesnt work (here). The arguement made previously that over time and in future elections it might be possible to break the 2 party system, but I dont see that happening for at least several generations. Our only hope here is that both big parties hate the youth, universities are being deregulated, our fibre optic network got shit on, referendum on gay marriage got scrapped, government assistance to youth got chopped, and cost of living is through the roof. You might think our independents would capitilise on this, but one of them just won her seat this election, Pauline Hanson, Australias trump; except she doesnt just hate muslims and immigrants, she hates every ethnicity but caucasions, and wants everyone else to get out of 'our' country. Nowhere is safe, time to enlist to ship to mars.

But doesn't Australia have a parliamentary democracy as opposed to a presidential democracy in the USA?

This making it much more likely for a coalition-based government since the prime minister must be chosen by parliament?

[MattZed]

But doesn't Australia have a parliamentary democracy as opposed to a presidential democracy in the USA?

This making it much more likely for a coalition-based government since the prime minister must be chosen by parliament?
Multi-party systems that encourage coalitions are more a by-product of their voting system (ie: proportional voting systems as opposed to plurality vote in each district) and political culture (UK, for instance, used to think it was just totally fun to have three major political parties) than it is being a parliamentary system vs. a presidential system.

[Cryptonic]

A coalition is just a natural outcome of a minority government