Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What I don't understand "even more" than that (literally, by the numbers) is how 49% of the country is registered independent and yet keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Worse yet, 76% of the country "wants to see alternatives" in the debates...but still keeps voting Democrat and Republican.

Even if people agree to buy into this whole "this election is special" premise, I think people would be well within their rights to riot in 2020, if they hear one more time that that election is special, too, and they must once again vote Democrat ("because who else are they going to vote for?!")

Because when elections become "special" all the time, it means they really aren't. And it means the problem is systemic, and it's that systemic issue that needs to be addressed before voting against any particular candidate. Otherwise, these problems are never going to end. "Fix Democracy First" - as Lessig once believed (like until earlier this year) before he also started thinking that people should just shut up and vote for Clinton already.

Any first past the post system like we have will trend towards a two party system as people vote strategically for the most tolerable mainstream candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

It's interesting to see people calling for more alternatives and more viable political parties in the US. It's not clear to me that having more political parties would be better since many European countries, where more parliamentary style representation is common, is also dealing with their own xenophobic and nationalist movements.

> Any first past the post system like we have will trend towards a two party system as people vote strategically for the most tolerable mainstream candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

FPTP also greatly increases the effect of gerrymandering, especially in single-member constituencies.

Let's say I was independent and lived in Ohio or some other swing state. What choices do I have?

* Vote Dem, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning

* Vote Repub, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning

* Vote other, have no chance at my pick winning.

In an ordinary election you may be willing to do #3 to 'send a message', etc. But in THIS election almost everyone seems to agree that one or both of the candidates are horrible and will ruin everything. So if you go #3 then you get no say in which major party candidate will win. I'd much rather have A win than B, even if I liked some third party more (right now I don't anyway, they're pretty crazy this year too).

I'd want my vote to count, and I don't think it would unless I voted major party.

As it is my vote won't count, because the outcome of my state is not in question at all.

> "But in THIS election almost everyone seems to agree that one or both of the candidates are horrible and will ruin everything."

I'd argue that's why it's a great chance to vote third party. Both major candidates are terrible choices, and quite frankly even though people say Hilary is less terrible than Trump, I don't buy it, just look at her track record. If you vote third party in this election, you might not win this time, but you can start laying the foundation for a strong third party to emerge in future elections.

> If you vote third party in this election, you might not win this time, but you can start laying the foundation for a strong third party to emerge in future elections.

Assuming that there are future (fair) elections.

I have serious concerns about that if Trump is to become the president.

I've heard many people on the right having the same concerns about Clinton.

Whoever wins I'm VERY interested to see what election/campaign/voting reform laws get proposed or passed.

Do people try to make tax returns a requirement? Birth certificates? Do we move to a more federal election system so it's not 50 states + 1000s of counties deciding how elections are run? Do presidential powers get reigned in a bit?

Much of that may require amendments, but I have a feeling we're going to have the discussions.

Improvements to the fairness of elections won't come from those who benefit from the status quo, it'll come from those at the grassroots level. Boosting the electoral performance of third party candidates builds confidence that grassroots movements can make a significant political impact.

As for whether Trump or Clinton would actively block fair elections, that wouldn't surprise me, but I wouldn't put it past either of them (Trump's already made it clear he wants to make it easier to manipulate the press, and Clinton was clearly willing to engage in underhand tactics to get the Democratic nomination). If you're of the same mindset then it makes no sense to vote for either of them, as it appears neither are interested in engaging in fair elections.

> rump's already made it clear he wants to make it easier to manipulate the press, and Clinton was clearly willing to engage in underhand tactics to get the Democratic nomination

I would dare say that these two things aren't equivalent.

Clinton "rigging" the primaries didn't involve preventing people from speaking out, or excluding them from voting. It was mostly about the system itself being "pre-rigged" by design, so to speak, and then some coordination with the DNC behind the scenes. All bad juju, but not the kind of thing that causes lasting damage compared to the current state of affairs. Compared to Democrat "machines" of the old, it's practically peanuts - and the country and its political system survived those.

OTOH, Trump's talk about expanding the libel laws and otherwise targeting the press, if implemented to its logical completion, would take a lot of time to dig out of. That's not even taking into account his threats to "investigate" his political opponents if elected.

> "Clinton "rigging" the primaries didn't involve preventing people from speaking out"

Some would argue that there's evidence that she is engaged in that activity:

https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4wa5ue/clinton_bo...

Whether you want to believe this or not is up to you, but I'd suggest doing a bit of research before dismissing it.

So that's the tradeoff. Would you rather that the X party might get a seat at the table next time or would you rather that you do your best NOT to elect the person you don't want by voting for their opponent.

I'd take the first option. Look at the shitshow that's been unleashed by continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils. We'll only stop things getting worse by making politicians earn our votes, rather than winning by default by being slightly more palatable than the other candidate. Voting with your conscience means you want to hold your politicians to higher standards, and whilst that might not have an immediate impact, it is the type of action that can make a noticeable difference over time.

If Teddy Roosevelt couldn't break up the two-party system, I'm not sure anybody can[1]. Political parties aren't even necessarily about policies at this point, I'm afraid; they seem to have turned into badges of identity such as religions once were. We're not quite there yet, but calling oneself a Republican or a Democrat is starting to feel like identifying as Lutheran vs Catholic during the wars of religion in the 16th century. For an example of how awful that kind of dynamic can go, particularly with an extra-radical fringe element stirring up populist sentiment, I would suggest Dan Carlin's podcast on happenings in the city of Muenster in that era[2]. It's thought-provoking.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_Stat...

[2] http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-48-prophet...

With the current one-tier election system, you will severely cripple the chances of your second best candidate to win, if you vote you your first choice independent candidate.

Perhaps it's because the two leading independent candidates have terrible policy proposals? (Not to say that both major party candidates have great proposals, either)

Tell me what you know about Johnson and Stein's policy proposals.

Johnson thinks we should eliminate income taxes and replace them with high consumption taxes and Stein thinks we should cancel student debt. I've admittedly cherry picked some things I don't like.

Like Europe's VAT? Hardly a wild, crazy idea.

What third parties? Would you rather have the libertarians or green party? Maybe a party or candidate with even less of a track record?

Neither offer a sane way forward.

I keep seeing this argument, and just because you disagree with libertarian principles doesn't make them more "insane."

Dismissing in such a negative way well thought out view points because they don't match your world view is counterproductive to having good policy discussions.

To me, they are insane. I don't know what to say. They don't bring much to the table I take seriously. I like some of the principles, but it's not a coherent platform.

Ironically, the same complaints apply to both the libertarian and the Green Party, though I have more beef with Jill Stein than the platform itself.

The important part is that both support major electoral reform that would enable third parties in general to be viable and to get proportional representation. If they can actually pull it off, I couldn't care less about the rest of their platform - the country can survive 4 years of libertarians or greens, it's seen much worse.

The catch is that said reform requires constitutional amendments, and these are gated on the states, not on the federal government (obviously, ratification requires state legislatures, but the states can also call for a constitutional convention, regardless of what the feds think).

So supporting third parties on the federal level is pointless from that perspective. If you just want electoral reform, vote third party for state legislature.

I'm surprised that more Americans don't spoil their ballot. Imagine if 20% of the ballots cast were spoiled. That would certainly wake up the media & politicians to the problems inherent in this 2 party system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com