Hacker News Reader

Comment by ngngngng | Hacker News Reader

I mean I didn't like any of the alternatives either. There's only two teams and I don't like them. What do I do?

This is my problem exactly. All this money, all these issues, and we're stuck with these clowns? Whatever happened to statesmen and women? Nope, we're stuck with politicians that act like pro wrestlers. We don't need to overthrow the government. We just need to overthrow the parties.

I had such high hopes for humanity with the emergence of the internet. With the all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising, voting records, etc., it would be SO EASY to find and elect the "right" people.

I truly long for thoughtful discussions about real issues. I'm still holding out a little hope for the next great awakening.

With all the world's knowledge at our fingertips, including detailed information about political fundraising and voting records, people have increasingly realized that politics isn't the right place for thoughtful discussions about real issues. It's like going to Nike headquarters and asking why everyone's so focused on sportswear.

I strongly disagree with your Nike / sportswear comparison. Maybe I didn't communicate my point clearly here. I'm specifically talking about governance / political science vs. popcorn politics. There are plenty of real issues to be discussed in the world of political philosophy, public administration and government that don't involve stage shows and rabble rousing.

Starting with local politics first, then regional, THEN national - the question of who will govern us and set rules and make laws is of critical importance. What good does it do to solve the world's problems if our representatives are robbing the coffers and crashing the plane into the mountain?

Right, that’s the premise I don’t agree with. Politics is the art of stage shows and rabble rousing, and tackles larger issues only to the degree that they make a good show or easily rouse the rabble. Important questions usually aren’t and usually shouldn’t be solved through politics.

You go vote for someone else in the democratic primaries? He isn't the candidate

It's too bad more people don't realize the answer is to vote third party.

Voting for somebody you don't want to win is the definition of "throwing your vote away."

Bit of a chicken and egg issue. It's hard to convince people that this is a viable option until a third party receives a critical mass of votes at least once.

I have only ever voted third party. But they continue to not get any traction and I feel more and more that my time would be better spent almost literally anywhere besides trying to be involved in politics.

There were obvious and appreciable difference between the two candidates of those two teams, between their campaign promises and between their political and personal histories. Even if you didn't "like" either, you can still think about these differences and decide which one you think is more fit to serve as president.

Even if you're unwilling to do that, then practically speaking, there were more than 2 teams. If a party receives 5% of the popular vote, they qualify for federal funding in the next election. It might not necessarily get them on the debate stage, but we're talking about a lot of money to get their messages out there one way or another. Libertarians got 3.28% of the popular vote in 2016. It might be naive to think that they or the Green party could have reached 5%, but I'm not one to take the defeatist attitude that voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away.

Vote for the candidate who doesn't make you seriously question whether there will be another election in 4 years?

The only thing that makes me question that is noting which candidates are trying to disarm every citizen who isn't on a police force.

No one who is grounded in reality is seriously questioning that. You are just being hyperbolic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com