Hacker News Reader

Comment by duaneb | Hacker News Reader

This kind of thinking helps nothing. If you are outraged, push to change it. If you seriously think the best way to do that is to not vote for Hillary, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

View on HN

I am outraged by the drug war, therefore I will not vote for a drug warrior. Not sure what else to say.

I wouldn't worry about it much - there are a lot of us out there who aren't exactly "single-issue voters", but for whom a single issue can make a candidate completely unpalatable.

For me, that's guns. For you, that's drugs. For many others, it's abortion.

Just curious, pro or against guns?

I suppose against, meaning you want a candidat who wants tight regulation?

I was purposefully vague :)

I'm very, very pro-gun.

Last time I checked Clinton promised to move marijuana to schedule II, not do anything like pledge to end the completely pointless war on drugs.

Do you have millions in donations to a campaign or millions of followers to vote for your cause? Then I wouldn't hold your breath "pushing for change" within a campaign on either side of the aisle because your opinion simply doesn't matter to them.

well then lobby to get your electoral system fixed instead of copping out. not voting for Hillary Clinton increases the chances of Trump winning, and who even knows what his actual policy on drugs are?

To be clear I was not a Bernie supporter either(since you mention lobbying the electoral system), I just used the MJ example because it was easy and at hand. I do not support Trump either.

By voting for someone I support, I am not voting anyone else into office, that is up to their supporters.

That makes sense emotionally, but in reality in FPTP you just enabled the even worse other party. If you want your voice fairly represented, you'll need other voting mechanisms and non-partisan districting mechanisms. Your wish is legitimate, but unfortunately the current system limits your useful actions.

There's no mathematical reason why the two winning parties in FPTP have to be the same two parties forever. It is the media coverage that makes it so, and concerted voting for a single third party could make that party part of a new duopoly.

Sure, you're right about that. In fact, we may be in an era where that might be possible at the moment (probably in the next election though). However, when a third party is actually viable, you'll know it well before election day.

So vote for the candidate in this election that intends to do away with FPTP.

You can not vote for Clinton and push to change drug laws, they're not mutually exclusive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com