Presidential Election November 6th: Thoughts and Predictions

[Dogenzaka]

If people would just do a little sleuthing on their own, they'd find that there's usually more than two parties for the presidential office (and other offices for that matter). People need to be made aware of the third/independent party. I would bet that if more people DID know about them, it would result in A) more people voting in general and B) a more varied result from the polls.

I think people are aware, they just don't vote for them knowing that they wouldn't win anyway.
For example, my views mostly line libertarian. I could have voted for Gary Johnson but I didn't honestly because that would have done nothing.

Then again thanks to electoral college my vote still means nothing!

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

people like you make me vomit.

anyway, it was a fun one 2012. Seeing all the snarky remarks was certainly a kicker. In another four years, hopefully strong leaders from either party emerge and we (the people) can vote with informed minds like we say we do. I'm certainly interested to see Obamas follow-through and our progress "Forward."


Stay classy khi

The passive aggressiveness in this post is some powerful shit...tell your rich parents I'm sorry that their guy lost I guess.

People need to be made aware of the third/independent party.

Like I said earlier in this same thread, independent voting is stupid. People have given me all sorts of justifications for why it makes a difference and why it's worth looking into, but nothing changes the fact that it just does not lead anywhere for the people involved. Gary Johnson was aiming for 5% of the popular vote and he got <1%. Maybe it won't always be this way.

 

[Sexual White Chocolate]

Voting for a third party is better than not voting. Either way, the outcome of the President will remain the same, but at least at the end of the day you can say you voted for who you wanted in office. Consistently having to vote for the lesser of two evils is shit, even if there is nothing that will change about it in any sort of near future here. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of other things to vote on when you start filling in your ballot.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

at least at the end of the day you can say you voted for who you wanted in office.

I guess. I've never been a big fan of symbolic gestures.

 

[Nyangoro]

I understand that, right now (and quite possibly for a while), voting third party doesn't actually change anything.

But at the same time, if no one votes third party because of it, then things definitely won't change.

 

[Jadentheman]

Voting for a third party is better than not voting. Either way, the outcome of the President will remain the same, but at least at the end of the day you can say you voted for who you wanted in office. Consistently having to vote for the lesser of two evils is shit, even if there is nothing that will change about it in any sort of near future here. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of other things to vote on when you start filling in your ballot.

You're saying that as if voting Third Party is actually the "good side" there will always be lessers of evil. No side is perfect, even with third party. Although I'm happy most of America got it right. If you observe who these types of people are in Washington, then you would know who to vote for.

 

[Sexual White Chocolate]

^I dislike politicians as a whole, but there are good people out there, on all sides. And even worse people on all sides as well. Me advocating the third party bit was for this year's candidates, but also because people (and not necessarily anyone in this thread) don't even recognize that there is a potential future out of this binary code we live in presidentially. I would rather encourage the kids here to vote for who they actually want to win instead of abstaining completely because who they want to win won't. In any case, I've seen your posts here and to be honest, I could really care less about your input.

I guess. I've never been a big fan of symbolic gestures.

Well, lover, let's put it this way. I was not going to give either of the main party candidates my vote, even though much like your previous post:

File that under 'shit that everyone should have realized a month ago' tbh

I knew well before going into this that Obama was going to win. Between majoring on the statistics and economics side of Finance, and just not being a diddlying dumbass, it was pretty clear to me. However, he didn't and wouldn't have my vote. Neither would Romney, with all those strings holding him up. But I would however still exercise my right to vote.

In any case, I don't even expect it to happen in my lifetime, but an independent (which is honestly what I think this country needs- a good one, anyway) will never win until people actually start voting for them. Your kind of attitude is what would hold us to this continuous loop of a vicious cycle forever, Sam.

 

[Smoofy]

Isn't it true that if a third party gets X amount of votes it'll end the main two party system or something?

I forget the logistics behind that, but I'm pretty sure that's true.

So if you support a third party candidate, vote. There must be countless people who think "Oh, it won't matter anyway" when if all those people did vote, it could make a huge difference. One of the worst logical fallacies out there.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

If they get 5% of votes (I believe popular?) they receive federal funding. Which is cool and all but federal funding isn't what is holding republicans and democrats afloat.

Anyways, I was more interested in my local government when I went and voted, honestly. I voted for a presidential candidate, sure, but I knew what the outcome would be before I even cast my vote. On a local level I wasn't so sure but it did feel more like making a difference.

 

[Chromatic]

The Third parties are only "stupid" and "meaningless" because people allow them to be that way. The media barely covers them, if at all. They never seem to be given any platform in the debates. In some states they're even forced off the ballot by the other parties. The US has become a nation that, unfortunately, has come to shun anything that's not already in the 'mainstream' of things; if it's new or unknown, or doesn't fit into the formula, it gets put down.

If people could break from the mold just a bit things could shape up differently. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people with more Libertarian views. I like to think that most of the people in the US fall into that. It's just that they're either caught in the dark, unaware of such a party existing, or simply stuck in the belief that it's either A or B, and that no C exists.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

Your kind of attitude is what would hold us to this continuous loop of a vicious cycle forever, Sam.

The Third parties are only "stupid" and "meaningless" because people allow them to be that way.

I think you guys are misunderstanding where I come from. You can rationalize why third party candidates never go anywhere however you want to, but I'm not thinking hypothetically, I'm thinking about reality. My 'attitude' isn't that third parties are inherently worthless or that a two-party system is good, it's that as a practical matter they just don't accomplish anything. The Libertarian party needs 5% of the popular vote to receive federal funding? Okay, well in this election they won just under 1%, which was an all-time high for the Libertarian Party in a presidential election. If that sounds promising to you, it shouldn't. Even Ross Perot won like 20% of the popular vote and still ended up going no where. You guys are looking at changing the mindset of a culture, and I am looking at history & mathematics. It's not gonna happen. Explain it however you want to, and it's STILL not gonna happen. Sorry.

 

[gelandporn]

I think you guys are misunderstanding where I come from. You can rationalize why third party candidates never go anywhere however you want to, but I'm not thinking hypothetically, I'm thinking about reality. My 'attitude' isn't that third parties are inherently worthless or that a two-party system is good, it's that as a practical matter they just don't accomplish anything. The Libertarian party needs 5% of the popular vote to receive federal funding? Okay, well in this election they won just under 1%, which was an all-time high for the Libertarian Party in a presidential election. If that sounds promising to you, it shouldn't. Even Ross Perot won like 20% of the popular vote and still ended up going no where. You guys are looking at changing the mindset of a culture, and I am looking at history & mathematics. It's not gonna happen. Explain it however you want to, and it's STILL not gonna happen. Sorry.

But voting for a third party does have practical benefits, it's not just symbolic.
Changing the mindset of a culture is exactly how you change history. This isn't an issue of mathematics. No one is looking at the probability of getting a third party candidate in office and saying blindly "Well they have a shot!" We all know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell. But that isn't what it's about.

In each era of political systems there have been some third parties that have reshaped the policies of the two major parties. The Anti-Masonic Party, the Free Soil Party, the Prohibition Party, the Populist Party, the Bull Moose Party, etc. The bigger a threat they are, the more likely the parties are to realign. But they aren't threats in themselves, they're threats in relation to the other major party. Third parties can and have taken votes away from one major party to the benefit of another. To prevent this from happening, this requires a shift where the major parties strike a compromise with the platform of these smaller parties.

On the conservative side of the spectrum, the Tea Party is actually a perfect example (the Occupy movement didn't really coalesce into anything). The Libertarians too. There's a reason why Republicans tried to block Gary Johnson from ballot access in as many states as possible.
But yeah, this election, third parties had less of an impact than they should have, but history does tell us that they're pretty damn important. Usually there's one critical realigning election, and it just so happens that this one (probably) wasn't. But there will be more.

 

[Sexual White Chocolate]

I think you guys are misunderstanding where I come from.

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I won't speak for the others, but my main ploy at you was that how you phrased it essentially came out as "not voting is better than voting third party," whereas I would say that voting third/independent/whatever is better than not voting at all. Granted, I agree with you in that if you don't know any of the candidates' stances or what's going on, then shut the diddly up and stay at home on election day.

The rest of what I was saying is that people don't vote based on who they want to win, but rather the way they vote is based on who they don't want to win. And that is simply human nature. Instead of always going for the greatest win, they choose to try and prevent the greatest loss. They still lose because their favorite isn't going to win, but they believe they lose less as long as candidate b doesn't win. So, they give the vote to candidate a, even though he's not their first pick. That's what these elections turn into. And again, that's just human, not even cultural. I don't care about your perspective on all that because I already stated that I don't even expect there to be any shift until probably long after I'm dead (Hell, not even before the year 3000 according to Futurama). But there's a difference between coping with how things are and simply taking it in the butt.


But I tend to be a bit of a romantic at times, and I do love my symbolic gestures so.

 

[Chromatic]

I think you guys are misunderstanding where I come from. You can rationalize why third party candidates never go anywhere however you want to, but I'm not thinking hypothetically, I'm thinking about reality. My 'attitude' isn't that third parties are inherently worthless or that a two-party system is good, it's that as a practical matter they just don't accomplish anything. The Libertarian party needs 5% of the popular vote to receive federal funding? Okay, well in this election they won just under 1%, which was an all-time high for the Libertarian Party in a presidential election. If that sounds promising to you, it shouldn't. Even Ross Perot won like 20% of the popular vote and still ended up going no where. You guys are looking at changing the mindset of a culture, and I am looking at history & mathematics. It's not gonna happen. Explain it however you want to, and it's STILL not gonna happen. Sorry.

How convenient. I'm also talking about reality; just from a different angle. The reality is that people will have better attitudes after they've been exposed to, and adjusted to something. It's reality that the third parties don't tend to have nearly the same opportunity for exposure at large. It's reality that they don't get nearly the same media coverage as the main parties. It's reality that there some states that don't even include them on the ballots. It's reality that there have been stipulations put in place that prevent them from participating in the big debates.

I won't argue your numbers. It's true that those third parties don't get the votes they need, and they've yet to see real success, especially on the federal level. But I'm not rationalizing. I'm pointing out observations of factors that hold such groups back.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

"not voting is better than voting third party,"

I think that for all practical purposes they're one in the same.

The rest of what I was saying is that people don't vote based on who they want to win, but rather the way they vote is based on who they don't want to win. And that is simply human nature. Instead of always going for the greatest win, they choose to try and prevent the greatest loss. They still lose because their favorite isn't going to win, but they believe they lose less as long as candidate b doesn't win. So, they give the vote to candidate a, even though he's not their first pick. That's what these elections turn into.

I agree, and I'm not defending/advocating that system, I'm just acknowledging that it isn't going away any time soon.

post

Allow me to present my rebuttle:

United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How convenient. I'm also talking about reality; just from a different angle. The reality is that people will have better attitudes after they've been exposed to, and adjusted to something. It's reality that the third parties don't tend to have nearly the same opportunity for exposure at large. It's reality that they don't get nearly the same media coverage as the main parties. It's reality that there some states that don't even include them on the ballots. It's reality that there have been stipulations put in place that prevent them from participating in the big debates.

And what do you think is the result of all those facts? If you guessed that it renders third party voting useless, pat yourself on the back.

I'm just being pragmatic here, people. Don't kill the messenger.

 

[State]

Just to add to the "minorities influencing main partisan binopoly" argument: it's true; minorities affect the tide of the main parties (at least over here at my country). Both "mainstream" parties were conservative in the subjects of legalizing drugs and homosexual marriages; minorities came and put this into discussion, main parties had no option but to express themselves.

 

[Sexual White Chocolate]

I'm just being pragmatic here, people. Don't kill the messenger.

I'm going to stab and shoot you you. Both of those things with my dick.

 

[gelandporn]

Allow me to present my rebuttle:

United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What...?
Are you talking about Ralph Nader's role? If so, that's proving my point that third parties can have a tangible impact.

 

[Orion]

I hope the ultimate result (and numbers) of the election are sobering for Obama, and force him to lift his game. Even with all of Romney's flip-flopping, lying and generally screwing things up for himself, he only came in about 2% behind Obama in the popular polls, and I think it also shows how disenfranchised people are with Obama in particular and American politics in general. Unfortunately, it's also not like he'll have to work to prove people he is re-re-electable, given enough good work.

 

[Bukkake Sensei]

What...?
Are you talking about Ralph Nader's role? If so, that's proving my point that third parties can have a tangible impact.

I'm proving that a 'tangible' impact isn't necessarily a goodimpact. Liberals who voted for Ralph Nader were voting against their own interests and ended up handing the election to the GOP. Aside from that, what was the impact? Was Ralph Nader elected president? Did the Democratic party veer to the left and embrace single payer health care? Ralph Nader and his supporters shot themselves in their collective foot and have nothing to show for it except for a really shitty two-term Republican president.

As for political realignment, you're talking about something that happens without the help of officially declared political parties and always has...organic populism has ALWAYS handled it better than third parties. And you seem to know that because the last two examples you gave aren't even actual parties. If the Tea Party was an established third party and they ran their own candidates, they would do MASSIVE damage to the Republican party and end up having very little to show for it. Same as Ralph Nader. They're waaaaaay more effective the way they are now, trying to influence the people who already think kind of like them to think even more like them from the outside instead of running their own people and dividing conservative voters in half.

Like I've been saying for almost three days now -- third party voting is stupid at best and harmful at worst.

That Tea Party example was beyond cringeworthy, by the way. Realignment =/= moving your party to the extreme right to appease a radical fringe group that's going to vote for you anyway and won't even be around to vote in a few decades, while in the process alienating other rapidly growing demographics like Latinos and unmarried women.