Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Case against voting 3rd Party

The Case against voting 3rd Party
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 03:44 PM
 
I think we definitely need this thread. In a year when everyone is more dissatisfied with their choices than normal the topic has become more timely than since the year 2000.

My point of view is simple: A vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Within a plurality system, a vote away from the two leading candidates is a wasted vote. Further, it is a vote that, if you have a preference between the two candidates, can be against your own interests.

From another thread:
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Iowa is a swing state so I can't afford to throw my vote away in order to make a statement, which means I'm stuck voting for one of the two. Hillary is the status quo. Her motives are abhorrent but mostly transparent. Corporations and Wall Street will continue to experience favoritism, income inequality will continue to grow, but everything will be the same. Who the hell knows with Trump? It could all be an act, or it could all be genuine. He is by nature brash, indigent, hostile, and tactless, and is proud of those qualities. His supporters tend toward uneducated at best and flagrantly racist at worst. This is not someone that should lead and represent America to the rest of the world.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's well put, and, I might add, completely practical. A protest vote is nothing more than a feel good act. Withholding your vote is merely abdicating responsibility.
Snow-i argues its the fault go people who elevate practicality over principle, but faulting people over the system that forces to vote this way is a flawed view, IMO.

---

Now to go further. It occurred to me that the phenomenon we're discussing probably has a place in Game Theory. i.e., why voters act the way they can do, can be explained (There's probably math to this, but that's gibberish to me). Lo and behold I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.
Real world example: Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992. In 1996, he got a little more than 8%.

Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate parties ran candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered fewer than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization.
Again, I think we saw this with the Democratic primary. It was clear that Bernie Sanders message resonated deeply with a large portion of the primary electorate, however the uncertainty on how strong a general election candidate he would make led to a portion of his supporters to still vote for Hillary instead, under the logic she would be better able to defeat the eventual GOP nominee.

Now here's another real world example: The Maine Gubernatorial Election of 2010 and 2014.

2010 saw Maine with 4 different Gubernatorial candidates on the ballot. The vote split as follows:
LePage (R): 37%
Cutler (I): 36%
Mitchell (D): 19%
Moody: (I): 5%

Here's Cutler's Ballotpedia: Basically he's a liberal. Combined with Mitchell who we'll assume is nominally liberal based on her party, that's 55% of the voting population that preferred left-leaning policies and got the exact opposite. What exactly did liberal voters in Maine gain by there being a liberal alternative on the ballot? Do you think these voters would keep their vote if they were given another chance?

Well, it turns out they did in their own way. In 2014 LePage was up for re-election, and Cutler (I) was on the ballot again, along with another Democrat. The vote split as follows:
LePage (R): 48%
Michaud (D): 43%
Cutler (I): 8%

Where did nearly 80% of Cutler's support go? Did he change positions? Was the Democrat that much more qualified? Or were voters changing their vote because the previous elections outcome was not to their liking? It's obvious what I conjecture, but this, like Perot above, is not an isolated incident.

My question is this: How were the left-leaning voters in 2010 who split their vote better off with LePage as Governor versus consolidating their vote pragmatically?

It gets better, by the way, because LePage is the 'radical' candidate from Duverger's second example above. From wikipedia:
Most of LePage's vetoes have come since 2013, when Democrats regained control of the Legislature from the Republicans. Democrats overrode 20 of LePage's vetoes. Five of them, including an override of the 2013–2014 state budget, came in the 2013 session of the Legislature, while 15 came in the 2014 session.[24][25][26] In the 2015 session of the Legislature, LePage had 14 more vetoes overridden as of June 11. That number is expected to climb as LePage has promised to veto every bill sponsored by a Democrat, regardless of its merits, in retaliation for the rejection of his proposal for a constitutional amendment referendum to eliminate Maine's income tax.
What a great situation!

No really, this is fine.
The conflict boils down to Republican Gov. Paul LePage wanting the legislature to move toward abolishing the state income tax. When that didn’t happen this session, he decided to veto practically every bill that reached his desk. In all, LePage has issued nearly 170 vetoes this year. That’s a big number, but what’s really striking is the fact that the legislature managed to override him about 70 percent of the time -- more than 120 overrides in all, including the state budget. This, despite the fact that his party controls the state Senate.
You could argue this is checks and balances working as intended, but I would say this is checks and balances working as a stop gap to keep a clearly crippled government running (And I certainly give the designers credit for its ability to do just that).

Still, this is probably not what the majority of Maine residents had in mind when they went to polls in 2014.

The state Supreme Court ruled in August in a dispute between LePage and the Democratic attorney general that the governor had waited too long to veto 65 bills. “He’s alienated his own party’s leaders, as well as the rank and file,” says Howard Cody, a University of Maine political scientist. “The governor has become so unpopular with the legislature, many members have become predisposed to override on principle, regardless of the details of the bill.”
This is dysfunction. All brought about because of a split vote. Twice.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 03:49 PM
 
Throwing this in from the other thread because it belongs here:
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This was long before we as a society were able to communicate & coordinate on the scale we are today. The idea that this two party system is absolute is exactly the bullshit the MSM & political leaders have been feeding us for eternity.
Within the FPTP system the two party system is the rational absolute because of voters preferred outcomes.

The system didn't come about because if MSM and political leaders – we've been a nominally two party country since our second president. It's the natural, logical (but probably not intended) outcome of the way the system has been designed.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We have the means now to subvert that control - something we didn't have in the early days of AOL (long before Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc).
As the year 2000 demonstrated, not very effective. Now we're in 2016 and the idea has completely died, even though you might claim we have more 'effective' technology.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 03:56 PM
 
Oh, one last example. Gary Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico, I believe he's still popular there as well. Still holds most of the views that got him elected. Can't sniff 20% of the electorate on the Libertarian ticket. And that's likely his best state.

I feel like I'm beating a horse here.

Edit: More body blows: Hell, look at the energized anti-Trump wing of the party. They couldn't even find or settle on anyone to run in opposition on principle until a few weeks ago. That's the reality of third parties in this country.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 04:31 PM
 
All this effort to convince people they shouldn't vote their choice. But should instead vote someone else's choice.

I've read today that a majority of voters dislike both major candidates. Should all of them break with your advice and vote their own choice, they can win outright. Assuming they settle on a single candidate. To my knowledge, this is the first time in living memory that a majority disliked both majors.

So you are right. This is indeed a timely discussion. The best chance our generation has to upset the apple cart - to stop being pushed into voting for the least-worst candidate. The more people who vote their conscience this time, the more likely we won't get another stinker in office.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
All this effort to convince people they shouldn't vote their choice. But should instead vote someone else's choice.
That's funny because, while I can see why it comes off that way, that's not why I started this.

My main issue is with those that hold this holier-than-thou attitude about voting third party.

My second issue is with those than don't acknowledge that, by removing votes from viable candidates, outcomes are affected. (It's similar to how when one team beats another, a third team's ranking with the conference can be affected)

Third, for those who feel strongly about certain values, but knowingly allow another candidate to get elected, they have to accept that they are signaling those certain values mean less to them than other perceived values - be it protest, idealogical purity, a niche topic or something else entirely.

And finally it is a defense of my own position. That there is nothing illogical or irrational of working within the system presented to me, or voting with regard to how to how others will use that system.

This country has functioned under a defacto two-party rules for most of its existence and I find it insulting to be pointed at as the source of the problem when it is the design of the system that has enabled such a situation to persist for so long.

I support ranked choice voting. I support trying to get it on ballots and referendums. And I believe this is a better use of time and energy than voting for someone who's chance of winning is slim-to-none.

That's why I made this thread.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 05:23 PM
 
I only blame you for creating this thread. Oh, and for the Great Recession of 2008. Nothing more should be inferred.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
All this effort to convince people they shouldn't vote their choice. But should instead vote someone else's choice.

I've read today that a majority of voters dislike both major candidates. Should all of them break with your advice and vote their own choice, they can win outright. Assuming they settle on a single candidate. To my knowledge, this is the first time in living memory that a majority disliked both majors.

So you are right. This is indeed a timely discussion. The best chance our generation has to upset the apple cart - to stop being pushed into voting for the least-worst candidate. The more people who vote their conscience this time, the more likely we won't get another stinker in office.
This. 1000x this.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 06:08 PM
 
Did Nader cost Gore Florida? (It would not have mattered if he won his home state.)
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That's funny because, while I can see why it comes off that way, that's not why I started this.

My main issue is with those that hold this holier-than-thou attitude about voting third party.
It's definitely not "holier than thou" - it's instead "let's think about what we're really doing with this paradigm". I believe we are surrendering our free society to an oligarchy with this mentality, and though it may cause short term "losses" in the long run, it is a far more viable strategy for keeping the ruling class in check. Apologies if my argument comes across as "holier than thou". It's not my intent, but I am passionate about my viewpoints.

My second issue is with those than don't acknowledge that, by removing votes from viable candidates, outcomes are affected. (It's similar to how when one team beats another, a third team's ranking with the conference can be affected)
This statement relies on having at least one viable candidate - a faulty premise in this situation. I argue neither party has put forth a viable candidate, and we shouldn't vote for one evil to save ourselves from another one.
Third, for those who feel strongly about certain values, but knowingly allow another candidate to get elected, they have to accept that they are signaling those certain values mean less to them than other perceived values - be it protest, idealogical purity, a niche topic or something else entirely.
This statement uses a logic that we are powerless to prevent absolute turds from taking office and are at the mercy of the DNC & RNC who effectively choose our candidates for us. IMO, this is effectively surrendering to the oligarchical ruling class that has taken over the country (and has become ever more brash about doing so).
And finally it is a defense of my own position. That there is nothing illogical or irrational of working within the system presented to me, or voting with regard to how to how others will use that system.
As is your prerogative. As for mine, I don't believe the system retains any integrity when trying to "game it" to achieve your preferred outcome. The system was designed for people to vote for there candidates, and no provisions were made to vote "against" anyone. That they've duped us into such a situation is all the more reason to buck the status quo.

This country has functioned under a defacto two-party rules for most of its existence and I find it insulting to be pointed at as the source of the problem when it is the design of the system that has enabled such a situation to persist for so long.
To clarify, I don't believe you are the source of the problem - not by a long shot. But you (and us all) are the only ones with the ability to change it. We, as citizens, now have an extremely powerful and ubiquitous tool to effect such change which was not available for most of our existence. Make no mistake, there is a ruling class in this country and their grasp on power is only enabled by society's willingness to buy into their game.
I support ranked choice voting. I support trying to get it on ballots and referendums. And I believe this is a better use of time and energy than voting for someone who's chance of winning is slim-to-none.
I agree with you here on all accounts, but I don't believe we can't have our cake and eat it too. I'm not saying it will be easy, and I'm not saying we're garaunteed success - I am simply making the case that if enough people start questioning the system, it will be far easier to change it. Like I said previously, we don't need coordination - we need momentum.
That's why I made this thread.
And I thank you for creating it to give us a chance to have this discussion
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 07:27 PM
 
I have the same reasoning as Laminar on this issue. It really comes down to the state you live in. If you live in a solidly red or blue state and you just can't stand either candidate then voting 3rd party allows you to vote your principle without any practical downside. But in a swing state not so much. For instance Missouri is a swing state. In 2008 McCain barely beat Obama 49.36% to to 49.23%. Now I like Bill Clinton and thought he was a really good POTUS. But I'm just not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. While she's absolutely qualified and competent she's simply not as good of a candidate as her husband. OTOH Donald Trump is an unmitigated disaster in the making. So I can't afford to vote 3rd party in a swing state like Missouri. Especially with the ideological balance of the SCOTUS on the line. With Trump's alt-right constituency that could have negative consequences and repercussions for generations to come.

OAW
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2016, 11:50 PM
 
Gotta agree with Dakar on this one.

If third party candidates really cared about affecting change, really cared about building their party and creating lasting policies, they'd run for local elections. They'd get on city councils. Get elected mayor. Hell, maybe a state senate or two. But that's not what they're asking for. They're asking for you to vote for them for President of the United States without showing that they can govern. I'm not a huge fan of either major party, but (minus the past 10 years of Republican Congress), they have proven they have an interest in governing, not just bitching and moaning.

Voting for a third party in this election might feel good. And hell, the Libertarian party candidates have at least held office before. But it feels like third party voters (confession: I foolishly voted for Nader in 2000) expect some kind of post-election momentum and reflection to take place. For people to go "Hey, this Green/Libertarian/Furry party candidate got 5% of the vote. I wonder what they're about." But it never happens. Perot was about personality. Nader was about bucking the status quo. Any time a third party has done well, it's because of the individual, not the party. The party was inconsequential because, outside of this candidate, most voters have never met anyone associated with that party.
Back in 2000, I had someone from the Libertarian party call to ask me to run for the sanitation district in my city. I had been, briefly, a registered Libertarian. I declined, but I feel this is the right approach. Build from the ground up.

Anyway. Come election day, I'm not going to be voting for the lesser of two evils. I'll be voting for a person I agree with on maybe 80% of policy, and against an individual I think would unravel all the progress our society has made in the past 40 years.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2016, 12:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
My point of view is simple: A vote for a third party is a wasted vote.
I live in a solidly blue state. A vote for one of the major parties in my state is not a wasted vote?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2016, 01:02 AM
 
@Demonhood

You live in Florida? Otherwise, how did the vote for Nader matter?

Well, except for the part where the more votes a third-party candidate gets, the more money they get next round.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2016, 01:39 AM
 
In non-battleground states, 3rd party votes are really the only ones that aren't a waste.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2016, 02:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
In non-battleground states, 3rd party votes are really the only ones that aren't a waste.
This is my opinion as well.

I mean, if you like one of the major candidates, then vote for one of them, but it makes me wonder what the **** is wrong with you?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2016, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This statement uses a logic that we are powerless to prevent absolute turds from taking office and are at the mercy of the DNC & RNC who effectively choose our candidates for us. IMO, this is effectively surrendering to the oligarchical ruling class that has taken over the country (and has become ever more brash about doing so).
I see this more as an example of the inevitable failure of democracy. We weren't /aren't forced to chose between the less of 2 evils. We had what? 22 D & R candidates to choose from in the beginning? Were none of them similar to the 3rd party candidates? Were none of them better than Trump or Hillary? Did democrats think Hillary was really better than ALL the R's running in the primaries? The purpose of primaries is to make sure messes like this dont happen, but we the people at large made sure it happened anyway, the people, mostly of the middle-class are to blame. When democrats were given 1 option early on, which they claimed they didnt like they still voted based on the "d" in front of her name... Which lead to the victory of Trump and HIllary. There are even reports that democrats voted for Trump to sabotage the republicans. Democrats have made clear they're happy just to see the fall of the republican party as if nothing else matters in the election.

Now I'm all for the majority voting for a 3rd candidate in this election, but it wont happen. The middle class and poor aren't educated enough or capable of cooperating & organizing to the extent necessary to orchestrate such an outcome. Now I hope by some miracle Im wrong, I hope I have to eat my words.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2016, 07:32 PM
 
^^ If Perot hadn't backed out the first time, before coming back in the 11th hour, we'd be having a different conversation. It can happen, but it'll take someone quite special.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I see this more as an example of the inevitable failure of democracy. We weren't /aren't forced to chose between the less of 2 evils. We had what? 22 D & R candidates to choose from in the beginning? Were none of them similar to the 3rd party candidates? Were none of them better than Trump or Hillary?
The DNC made damn sure their preferred candidate got the nomination.

The RNC, well....they stopped listening to their constituency awhile back and need to be replaced.

Did democrats think Hillary was really better than ALL the R's running in the primaries? The purpose of primaries is to make sure messes like this dont happen, but we the people at large made sure it happened anyway, the people, mostly of the middle-class are to blame.
Unfortunately you have a large section of the population that will vote their party's candidate regardless of the their viability as a candidate. This is what my viewpoint is attempting to change/mitigate.

When democrats were given 1 option early on, which they claimed they didnt like they still voted based on the "d" in front of her name... Which lead to the victory of Trump and HIllary. There are even reports that democrats voted for Trump to sabotage the republicans. Democrats have made clear they're happy just to see the fall of the republican party as if nothing else matters in the election.
Agreed, which is why escaping the notion that the DNC & RNC are our only two options must be set aside.

Now I'm all for the majority voting for a 3rd candidate in this election, but it wont happen. The middle class and poor aren't educated enough or capable of cooperating & organizing to the extent necessary to orchestrate such an outcome. Now I hope by some miracle Im wrong, I hope I have to eat my words.
In CO - a battleground state, the two biggest 3rd party candidates are polling at a combined 21%. That's not terribly far off Trump (low 30s) & HRC (low 40s). I don't think the gap is quite as large as people assume.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 11:53 AM
 
I think it says something when the libertarian ticket is not the craziest ticket in town.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I think it says something when the libertarian ticket is not the craziest ticket in town.
Is that because party lines are more important than the candidates themselves? (Honest question).
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 01:10 PM
 
Well, the libertarians think Johnson is a LINO, meaning he's not as far out there as some libertarians. Which makes Weld a johnny come lately LINO... and in the past as our Republican gov of a very Dem state, I'm sure Weld got called RINO too. But they both seem like reasonable people, well-liked, have never been indicted, impeached, or gone bankrupt...

Without party lines if we put all the candidates on a chart of their beliefs how would they all compare? I feel certain we've seen this chart somewhere.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Did Nader cost Gore Florida? (It would not have mattered if he won his home state.)
Yes. Bush's official margin after all the recounts was under 1000 votes. Either Nader dropping out or avoiding the butterfly ballot insanity would have been enough for Gore to win Florida. Nader also cost Gore New Hampshire, which would have been enough for a Gore win even without Florida, but it seems Tennesee would have gone to Bush even without Nader on the ballot.

Anyway, water under the bridge. What is the thread's opinion about changing the election system away from FPTP? Australian rules preferential voting, perhaps?
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Well, the libertarians think Johnson is a LINO, meaning he's not as far out there as some libertarians. Which makes Weld a johnny come lately LINO... and in the past as our Republican gov of a very Dem state, I'm sure Weld got called RINO too. But they both seem like reasonable people, well-liked, have never been indicted, impeached, or gone bankrupt...
I mean, it's to the point where we can only describe candidates by their parties. I've maintained for some time that the election cycle has become more like rooting for your football team than evaluating the next leader of the free world.

Without party lines if we put all the candidates on a chart of their beliefs how would they all compare? I feel certain we've seen this chart somewhere.
How do we devise a chart on a continuum without using party lines? What would your axes be? I've seen the chart, but it's always described using terms that are more or less associated with political parties (i.e. right or left). I suggest that if we're going to chart the candidates, we do so based on (more) objective measures and not subjective "leanings" that use themselves to describe themselves.

I think this could help people start voting more for policy, instead of their "team".
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 07:34 PM
 
I could swear I saw one which had immigration, war, schools, etc as data points.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2016, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I could swear I saw one which had immigration, war, schools, etc as data points.
It's entirely possible you have and I've just never seen it. If you find it, would love to take a look.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2016, 03:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How do we devise a chart on a continuum without using party lines? What would your axes be? I've seen the chart, but it's always described using terms that are more or less associated with political parties (i.e. right or left). I suggest that if we're going to chart the candidates, we do so based on (more) objective measures and not subjective "leanings" that use themselves to describe themselves.
Did someone ask for subego's patented, historical, global political spectrum?

Too bad, yer gettin' it anyways.

Individualism is to the right, collectivism is to the left. Small or anti-government is on the right, large or pro-government is on the left.

Capitalism is on the right. Socialism is on the left.

Pro-choice is on the right. Pro-life is on the left.

Anarchy is on the right. The police state is on the left.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2016, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
In non-battleground states, 3rd party votes are really the only ones that aren't a waste.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is my opinion as well.

I mean, if you like one of the major candidates, then vote for one of them, but it makes me wonder what the **** is wrong with you?
You guys got me on that, but here's the irony – by voting 3rd party in a state where the outcome is predetermined, it just reinforces that 3rd party votes have no meaning. The inference here is that if your vote mattered, you would be less likely to vote 3rd party. That's kind of my point.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2016, 12:48 AM
 
As I've said, the value in voting third party at this point (other than protest) is for every vote the third party receives, their fundraising potential is raised (and the major parties are reduced for not getting it)

This isn't particularly a lot of value, and does compare unfavorably to the value of a swing vote.

For a non-swing vote, unless one wants to give that microscopic fraction of fundraising mojo to one of the major parties, then the value of vote for one of them is actually zero. In other words, less than the value of the third party vote.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2016, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I've said, the value in voting third party at this point (other than protest) is for every vote the third party receives, their fundraising potential is raised (and the major parties are reduced for not getting it)
Exactomundo. Also, it's important WRT media and public perception. They won't be taken seriously until they receive at least 20% again, and that's not happened since Perot (whom I voted for 2x).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2016, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They won't be taken seriously until they receive at least 20% again, and that's not happened since Perot (whom I voted for 2x).
I also voted for Perot twice. But I did it in separate elections.

you're a pal, so I won't tell anyone
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2016, 07:26 AM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2016, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As I've said, the value in voting third party at this point (other than protest) is for every vote the third party receives, their fundraising potential is raised (and the major parties are reduced for not getting it)

This isn't particularly a lot of value, and does compare unfavorably to the value of a swing vote.

For a non-swing vote, unless one wants to give that microscopic fraction of fundraising mojo to one of the major parties, then the value of vote for one of them is actually zero. In other words, less than the value of the third party vote.
Better funds does nothing's my when the system works against them. Perot was buying blocks of national tv time and he got 20%.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I also voted for Perot twice. But I did it in separate elections.

you're a pal, so I won't tell anyone
Make that 4x, then.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2016, 01:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Better funds does nothing's my when the system works against them. Perot was buying blocks of national tv time and he got 20%.
He shot himself, the first time. It was practically a statistical 3-way tie before he temporarily dropped out, due to threats against his family. (His VP choice didn't help either, but that's neither here nor there.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2016, 02:29 PM
 
In what can only be a wild coincidence, there's s ranked choice initiative on Maines ballot this year.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 08:27 PM
 
Since snow-i and I are back at it again, I'm trying to hone in on the Game Theory that best represents what I'm trying to communicate. At best, my fine arts degree leads me to believe that the current electoral system is something like the prisoner's dilemma or the coordination game or some type of hybrid.

To clarify the prisoner's dilemma is:
If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)

Using the first, imagine a Prisoner's Dilemma where, instead of having to deal with two prisoners (or voters), it's upped to 150 million prisoners (voters).

I'll rework it as thus:
Betraying = Voting for the entrenched major parties
Remain Silent = Voting third party

How can someone feel comfortable that a majority of prisoners/voters will not betray them/vote major party?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 09:28 PM
 
Interesting comparison. But in this election, both major party candidates were stinkers, which changes the reasoning.

Vote for either major party, get a stinker.
Vote 3rd party, most likely get a major-party stinker anyway. But also get a small chance for your 3rd party choice.

I'm surprised more people didn't parse it this way.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Interesting comparison. But in this election, both major party candidates were stinkers, which changes the reasoning.
But not to a sufficient degree, ~90 % of registered Republicans voted for Trump and ~85 % of registered Democrats for Clinton. To many it was more important for the other major party's candidate not to win rather than to send a message to their own party. A first pass the post voting system statistically forces you to have just two parties for otherwise the third spoils the vote for someone else. The presence of the Electoral College reinforces this to the nth degree, because votes in California cannot compensate for lack of votes in, say Pennsylvania.

If you look around the net for people who reasoned why they voted for the candidate that they did, one recurring theme for people who voted for a third party was whether their vote “mattered”, e. g. some people who strongly disliked Trump and Clinton (but still thought Clinton was preferable) in California voted third party, because they knew California would go to Clinton.

Wanting to have choice beyond two parties invariably means you have to overcome and replace first past the post voting.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Dec 14, 2016 at 02:57 AM. Reason: Fixed typo)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,